development strategy for the irish pig industry 20
TRANSCRIPT
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 1 30/01/2012
A Development strategy for the Irish Pig
Industry 2008 to 2015
Prepared by the Teagasc Pig Production
Development Unit following consultation with
stakeholders
January 7, 2008
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 2 30/01/2012
Table of contents
1. Summary and recommendations .................................................................................... 7
1.1. Formulation of the Development Strategy ....................................................... 7
Background............................................................................................................................... 7
Objective.................................................................................................................................. 7
The process.............................................................................................................................. 7
1.2. Background – The Irish pig industry in brief ................................................... 7
1.3. Drivers of change in the pig industry ................................................................. 8
1.4. A vision of the Irish pig industry in 2015.......................................................... 8
2. Recommendations for development of the industry............................................... 9
3. Implementation of development plan......................................................................... 17
4. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.1. Objective of study.................................................................................................. 18
4.2. Methodology.............................................................................................................. 18
4.3. Drivers of change in the pig industry ............................................................... 18
5. Background......................................................................................................................... 19
5.1. The Irish pig industry............................................................................................ 19
5.2. The national herd..................................................................................................... 19
5.3. Ownership and operation of pig units in Ireland ...........................................20
5.4. Pig output ................................................................................................................... 21
5.5. Geographical distribution...................................................................................... 21
5.6. Distribution by unit size........................................................................................24
5.7. Employment in the pig industry...........................................................................25
5.8. Public perception of the pig industry................................................................26
6. The global pig industry...................................................................................................26
6.1. North America..........................................................................................................27
6.2. South America..........................................................................................................29
6.3. Other countries .......................................................................................................29
7. The EU pig industry ........................................................................................................30
7.1. Germany......................................................................................................................30
7.2. Spain ............................................................................................................................ 31
7.3. Denmark...................................................................................................................... 31
7.4. Netherlands............................................................................................................... 31
7.5. France ......................................................................................................................... 31
7.6. UK and Northern Ireland......................................................................................32
7.7. Poland ..........................................................................................................................34
7.8. Hungary.......................................................................................................................34
7.9. Other EU....................................................................................................................34
8. Pigmeat consumption pattern and trends.................................................................35
8.1. Global...........................................................................................................................35
8.2. EU .................................................................................................................................35
8.3. Ireland ........................................................................................................................36
8.4. Points of purchase of pork and bacon products.............................................36
8.5. Niche markets ..........................................................................................................36
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 3 30/01/2012
8.6. Organic pig production...........................................................................................37
8.7. Free Range and outdoor production...................................................................37
8.8. Straw based semi-outdoor production..............................................................38
8.9. Market outlook .........................................................................................................38
9. Pigmeat Trade...................................................................................................................39
9.1. Global...........................................................................................................................39
9.2. Within EU...................................................................................................................39
10. Irish exports and imports of pigmeat...................................................................40
10.1. Exports ...................................................................................................................40
10.2. Imports...................................................................................................................40
10.3. Live exports ..........................................................................................................40
11. Pigmeat processing ...................................................................................................... 41
11.1. Slaughtering.............................................................................................................. 41
11.2. Location of slaughter plants ............................................................................ 41
11.3. Relations between slaughter plants and suppliers ....................................42
11.4. Secondary processing ........................................................................................44
12. Carcass payment system............................................................................................44
12.1. Lean meat calculation .........................................................................................44
12.2. Preferred weight bands ....................................................................................45
12.3. Kill out percentage ..............................................................................................48
12.4. Alternative grading/evaluation systems ......................................................48
12.5. VAT refund............................................................................................................48
12.6. Statutory and non-statutory deductions.....................................................48
13. Pig meat quality issues other than leanness........................................................49
13.1. Appearance............................................................................................................49
13.2. Eating quality ........................................................................................................50
14. Breeding and Genetics................................................................................................ 51
14.1. Current national herd performance...............................................................52
14.2. Artificial Insemination ......................................................................................53
14.3. Breeding Programs on commercial farms.....................................................53
14.4. Breeds and crosses of choice..........................................................................53
14.5. Future Direction of on-farm breeding programmes.................................54
15. Trends in production efficiency and profitability ............................................54
15.1. Pattern of nominal producer prices, feed prices and margins ..............54
16. International benchmarking of the Irish pig industry ....................................55
16.1. Sow Productivity..................................................................................................56
16.2. Slaughter Weights..............................................................................................58
16.3. Growth Rates ........................................................................................................59
16.4. Feed Conversion Efficiency..............................................................................59
16.5. Production Costs ..................................................................................................60
16.6. International Feed Cost Comparison............................................................. 61
17. Government policy initiatives...................................................................................64
17.1. Rationalisation of processing...........................................................................64
17.2. Taxation policy .....................................................................................................65
17.3. Business Expansion Scheme (BES).................................................................65
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 4 30/01/2012
18. Financing pig production ............................................................................................65
18.1. Structured lending..............................................................................................65
18.2. Attitude of the main banks to investment in pig production.................66
18.3. Overdraft and cash flow...................................................................................67
18.4. Feed compounder credit....................................................................................67
19. Staff supply and training ..........................................................................................68
19.1. Sources of staff for the pig industry ..........................................................68
19.2. Formal college based training..........................................................................68
19.3. University training ..............................................................................................68
19.4. Work based training...........................................................................................68
19.5. Retention of staff...............................................................................................69
19.6. Occupational health in workers in pig units ................................................70
20. Feed supply to pig production..................................................................................70
20.1. The Irish feed industry ....................................................................................70
20.2. On-farm feed manufacture..............................................................................72
20.3. Principal feed ingredients and supply balance............................................74
20.4. Feed costs in Ireland .........................................................................................75
20.5. Food industry by products................................................................................77
20.6. Use of performance enhancers.......................................................................77
20.7. Regulation of feed quality ................................................................................78
21. Research and development........................................................................................79
21.1. Bodies involved .....................................................................................................79
21.2. Funding R & D in Ireland ...................................................................................79
21.3. Pig Research Levy................................................................................................80
21.4. Funding R & D abroad.........................................................................................80
22. Technology transfer ...................................................................................................86
22.1. Teagasc...................................................................................................................86
22.2. Private sector .......................................................................................................86
22.3. Veterinary..............................................................................................................86
23. Environmental issues...................................................................................................87
23.1. The planning process ..........................................................................................87
23.2. Licensing.................................................................................................................88
23.3. Nitrates Action Plan...........................................................................................89
24. Manure management ...................................................................................................90
24.1. Regulatory control...............................................................................................90
24.2. Land application....................................................................................................90
24.3. Contribution of pig manure to nutrient application to land.................... 91
24.4. The Treatment of Pig Manure......................................................................... 91
24.5. Treatment Costs..................................................................................................92
24.6. Farm Waste Management Scheme.................................................................93
25. Food safety issues with pigmeat.............................................................................93
25.1. Salmonella ..............................................................................................................93
25.2. Parasites.................................................................................................................94
25.3. Quality assurance at the meat plant.............................................................94
25.4. Undesirable substances in meat .....................................................................95
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 5 30/01/2012
26. Animal health issues ...................................................................................................97
26.1. Biosecurity/Overview.........................................................................................97
26.2. Aujeszkys Disease...............................................................................................98
26.3. PRRS ........................................................................................................................99
26.4. Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS)......................99
26.5. Salmonella Control Programme........................................................................99
26.6. Other production diseases ...............................................................................99
26.7. Veterinary Laboratory Service.....................................................................100
26.8. Pig Health Monitoring.......................................................................................100
26.9. Pig Health Council.............................................................................................. 101
27. Animal Welfare issues.............................................................................................. 101
27.1. Environmental enrichment/manipulable materials ..................................102
27.2. High fibre diets for pregnant sows.............................................................103
27.3. Tail docking..........................................................................................................103
27.4. Teeth resection .................................................................................................104
27.5. Castration ............................................................................................................104
27.6. Farrowing crates................................................................................................105
27.7. Pregnant sow housing........................................................................................105
27.8. Flooring.................................................................................................................106
27.9. Transport .............................................................................................................108
27.10. Lighting.................................................................................................................108
28. Quality assurance ......................................................................................................109
28.1. Bord Bia QA ........................................................................................................109
28.2. Retail chain QA..................................................................................................109
29. Pig industry representation....................................................................................109
29.1. Irish Farmers Association..............................................................................109
29.2. Funding of producer representation ........................................................... 110
29.3. Pigmeat processor representation................................................................ 111
30. Government agencies impacting on the pig sector ........................................... 111
30.1. Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFF) ........................................... 111
30.2. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government
(DOEHLG) / Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / Local Authorities...... 112
30.3. Bord Bia ................................................................................................................ 112
30.4. Enterprise Ireland ............................................................................................ 112
30.5. Teagasc................................................................................................................. 112
30.6. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)................................................ 112
30.7. Health and Safety Authority ........................................................................ 113
31. SWOT analysis of Irish Pig Industry ................................................................. 113
31.1. Strengths............................................................................................................. 113
31.2. Weaknesses......................................................................................................... 113
31.3. Opportunities...................................................................................................... 114
31.4. Threats................................................................................................................. 114
32. Implementation programme for development plan.......................................... 115
33. References................................................................................................................... 117
34. Appendices...................................................................................................................123
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 6 30/01/2012
34.1. Appendix 1. Membership of project team................................................123
Appendix 5. Written submissions and meetings .....................................................128
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 7 30/01/2012
1. Summary and recommendations1.1. Formulation of the Development Strategy
Background
The Irish pig industry in 2007 finds itself threatened by a crisis of confidence
arising from a combination of new legislation (environment and welfare), low
return on investment, very high feed prices and low profitability and a shortage
of skilled labour. It is an opportune time for stakeholders to combine to
critically examine the industry.
Objective
The object of the exercise was to formulate a development plan for the
industry for the next decade, an industry that would:
(1) produce pigmeat to the highest standards of quality and safety,
(2) would be internationally competitive, while having due regard for the
health and welfare of both staff and animals,
(3) minimize its impact on the environment and
(4) adequately remunerate pig producers.
The process
A discussion document containing a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the Irish pig industry was prepared by staff
of the Teagasc Pig Production Development Unit and distributed to stakeholders
(approximately 600) as a special issue Teagasc Pigs Newsletter. Written
submissions were received from organisations and individuals, meetings were
held with industry representatives and focus groups of producers. A
Development Strategy document was compiled from published literature and the
submissions received. Draft recommendations were presented to a meeting of
stakeholders and feedback requested. The complete Development Strategy
report will be available on request.
1.2. Background – The Irish pig industry in brief
Third most important sector in agricultural out put after beef and milk
About 7,500 jobs including production, slaughter, pork processing, feed
manufacture, services
Pig population in Ireland is about 1.7 million
Sow herd c. 150,000
Commercial units 440 (290 integrated; 50 breeding only; 100 finishing
only)
Average size of commercial sow units 420 sows
Slaughter weight c. 76kg carcass or c. 100kg liveweight
Exports about 60% of production, worth €250 million in 2006
Imports about 25% of home market (a high proportion of backs or loins)
Consumption – pork is the most consumed meat in the world - 38%, in
Europe (EU-25) - 49% and in Ireland - 41%
Consumption worldwide is increasing steadily
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 8 30/01/2012
Feed usage by the pig industry is about 925,000 tonnes about 600,000
tonnes compound and 325,000 tonnes home mixed
Main ingredients are barley, wheat, soyabean meal. Minor ingredients
maize, sorghum, sugar beet pulp, molasses, cereal by products, milk
products in feeds for young pigs,
Diets are fortified with a range of vitamins and minerals. Crystalline
amino acids are widely used.
Main strengths of the industry – specialised units, high productivity,
health status
Main weaknesses of the industry – feed price, transport costs
Main opportunities – demand for pigmeat
Main threats – environmental regulations, skilled labour shortage, herd
health
1.3. Drivers of change in the pig industry
The major influences which will shape the form and scale of the Irish pig
industry over the next decade are:
1. International competitiveness
2. Market returns, profitability and return on investment
3. Food safety
4. Environmental legislation
5. Animal welfare legislation
6. Rapid adoption of new technology
7. Entry of highly skilled personnel and their retention in the industry
1.4. A vision of the Irish pig industry in 2015
National pig herd - 1.8 million pigs including 150,000 sows
Annual slaughterings 3.6 million pigs
Number of production units about 500 (increase due to contract
finishing)
Sow productivity 24 pigs per sow
Average weight of carcass at slaughter 80kg (= 105kg liveweight)
Superior health status in the national herd
All production to Bord Bia Quality Assurance standard
Manure nutrient reductions through diet formulation
Every production unit achieving a high level of physical performance and
availing of a high quality benchmarking system for physical and financial
performance
Less reliance by producers on trade credit
Comprehensive training programme for improving skill levels of managers
and stock persons
A better, more positive public image of the sector
Closer liaison between the industry sectors – feed manufacture, pig
production and meat processing
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 9 30/01/2012
2. Recommendations for development of the industry
A. ALL STAKEHOLDERSDespite ranking third after milk and beef in terms of Gross Agricultural Output
the pig sector attracts minimal state support. It is perceived as having a
significant negative impact on the air and water quality and a sector that does
not warrant significant investment by state agencies. This perception grossly
misrepresents a technically efficient industry that has developed in response to
the demands of the market.
1. Given the uncertainty in the sector concerning its medium to long term
future viability stakeholders should obtain reassurance that it is national
policy to maintain a viable pig industry in this country.
2. All stakeholders should fund and participate in a combined effort to
promote the significant contribution of pig production to the agricultural
economy, employment in rural areas and to counter the negative public
perception of the industry among legislators, regulators and the general
public.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORS (EPA, DOEHLG and
DAFF)
The restrictions imposed on the spreading of pig manure as a fertilizer under
the Good Agricultural Practice (Protection of Waters) legislation and the
conditions attached to Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
licensing (formerly Integrated Pollution Control or IPC) are in real danger of
causing a serious reduction in the size of the industry. The scientific basis for
some of the regulations is not clear.
1. Pig producers should be allowed to operate and develop under regulations
and conditions that adequately protect the environment while ensuring the
financial viability of their units.
2. Once the owner of a pig unit that is required to have an Integrated
Pollution, Prevention and Control license can demonstrate and assure the
EPA that all the pig manure is being managed in compliance with Statutory
Instrument 378 of 2006 there should be no requirement to provide further
information in relation to farmer customer lands to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 10 30/01/2012
3. The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the
Environmental Protection Agency should clarify how pig manure put through a
treatment process will be classified with specific reference to whether or
not it is considered a waste under the Waste Management Act.
4. The conditions for the grant of planning permission that may be applied
to development on pig units should be transparent and consistent across all
local authority areas.
5. Ireland should initiate a proposal to the EU to allow N from pig manure
or the N rich separated liquid fraction of manure be used to replace
chemical N on grassland without contravening the Nitrates Directive Organic
N limits. This will result in fossil fuel savings and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions without a negative effect on water quality.
6. There should be a reassessment of whether soil test P is an appropriate
indicator of vulnerability of water bodies to P entry from soil and an
alternative measure based on the Iowa P Index which combines soil test P,
topography, cropping etc. should be considered.
C. PIG PRODUCERS
There is little evidence of significant improvements in technical efficiency in
Irish pig herd in the last decade and efficiency levels have fallen substantially
behind other countries especially in relation to litter size and pig growth rates.
This is at least partly attributable to the loss of staff to other more
remunerative sectors outside of farming and increased reliance on untrained
non-national workers. Feed costs per kg carcass are higher in Ireland than in
other countries and this is partly related to the purchasing and feeding
practices adopted by pig producers in Ireland.
1. Producers must reassess their breeding programmes, gilt management and
sow feeding strategies to maximize the number of pigs born alive per litter
to achieve a minimum of 12 born alive per litter.
2. Pig producers should make wider use of the Teagasc PigSys programme to
assess and benchmark their herd performance and production costs against
the top quartile of producers (see also recommendation no. I 3).
3. Feed credit is an expensive source of financing. Pig producers should
reduce and ideally eliminate their dependence on feed credit to part-finance
the operation of the unit.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 11 30/01/2012
4. Pig producers should negotiate lower feed prices by offering payment by
direct debit.
5. Pig producers should provide good facilities e.g. housing, canteen and
showers for employees.
6. Pig producers should ensure that their employees have working
conditions, including pensions, health insurance, life assurance and working
hours, comparable to those available in other industries.
7. The owners of pig units should ensure that their units are fully compliant
with Health and Safety legislation.
8. Pig producers should put in place and maintain effective biosecurity
procedures on every unit.
9. Pig producers and their customer farmers should be proactive in
minimizing the impact of odour from their activities on neighbours.
10. Contract finishing of pigs (using an all-in all-out management system)
should be explored as a means of reducing stock numbers on larger units,
improving health status, increasing slaughter weight and spreading the
manure load.
11. The IFA should consider promoting educational tours by producers to
improve relationships (between producers) and assess technology abroad in
production processing and marketing. Travel scholarships or grants should
be used to encourage participation by young workers and managers in these
trips. Commercial sponsorship may be available.
12. A national programme of herd health monitoring should be established
based on regular examination of pigs at slaughter.
D. PIG SLAUGHTERERS
Discussions between pig slaughterers and their pig suppliers all too rarely move
beyond the single issue of pig price. There is a marked absence of clear
guidelines on ideal weight bands, ideal lean meat content or other specific
requirements. Average slaughter weights have increased very significantly
without recourse to castration to prevent boar taint. The requirements of
secondary processors will be increasingly supplied from abroad if they cannot
obtain the product of the specification and quality they require from Irish
slaughterers.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 12 30/01/2012
1. All slaughtering plants should engage with pig suppliers to detail and
explain their requirements in relation to the type of pig required and
including carcass weight range, lean content, conformation and meat quality
attributes.
2. The present payment schedule should be reassessed to take account of
market requirements, changes in slaughter weight and changes in the lean
content of carcasses.
3. Longer term supply contracts should be considered with a view to
lowering of slaughtering costs through better factory capacity utilisation.
4. Procedures should be put in place by slaughterers and their suppliers to
ensure that problems with boar taint do not occur in view of the increase in
pig slaughter weights.
5. Improving eating quality of pigmeat through use of the best pre- and
post-slaughter technologies should be a priority for slaughter plants.
6. Pig slaughterers should provide suppliers with quarterly summary of pigs
supplied detailing kill-out, weight distribution, lean content and
condemnations showing how this compares with the average. The PIGIS
package used in Northern Ireland would appear ideal for this purpose.
E. INDUSTRY REPESENTATION
With the introduction of a comprehensive range of new regulations and
inspections for pig producers the need for a strong representative organization
has never been greater. A strong, well–supported and effective organization to
represent producers’ interest in dealing with Government departments and state
agencies as well as representatives of the other sectors in the industry is
essential. The Pigs and Pigmeat Committee of the Irish Farmers Association has
been and is likely to be the only body capable of representing producers’
interests. The limited membership of the Irish Association of Pigmeat
Processors means that a significant proportion of the slaughter sector are not
represented at national level. The secondary processing sector does not appear
to liaise with pig producers.
1. The present regional structure and representation on the Pigs and
Pigmeat Committee of the Irish Farmers Association should be reviewed to
have fewer but more active regional committees.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 13 30/01/2012
2. All producers must provide strong committed financial and active support
to IFA to ensure that it can adequately research issues and represent the
interests of pig producers.
3. The IFA Pigs and Pigmeat committee should provide increased
communication with its membership through more regular newsletters and
emails.
4. Meetings of IFA Pigs and Pigmeat Regional Committees should include a
technical presentation in addition to the normal agenda with a view to
stimulating attendance.
5. Pig slaughter plants and pigmeat processors should participate in a forum
established to represent their interests and to provide effective liaison with
stakeholders (including producers) on a regular basis.
F. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
The Department of Agriculture and Food is centrally involved in the pig sector
through a wide range of regulatory and support functions. These include herd
registration, movement monitoring, food safety, pig health and welfare,
feedstuffs and feed manufacture, controls on the use of medication and
monitoring for inhibitory substances, disease eradication programmes,
veterinary laboratory service, carcass grading and, grant aid for farm
improvements including manure storage and pig welfare.
1. The Department of Agriculture and Food should provide funding for the
auditing of pig farms under the new Bord Bia Pigmeat Quality Assurance
Scheme as is already being done for Beef Quality Assurance.
2. The Department of Agriculture and Food should designate one veterinary
laboratory to carry out investigations on pig disease and provide appropriate
specialist staffing for this work.
3. A concerted effort to eradicate Aujeszky’s Disease from the remaining
few positive herds must be made immediately by the Department of
Agriculture and Food.
4. The operation of the Salmonella Control Programme should be reviewed
and a co-ordinator appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Food to
oversee its operation.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 14 30/01/2012
5. A clear policy decision is urgently required from Department of
Agriculture and Food in relation to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory
Syndrome (PRRS).
6. The Department of Agriculture and Food should actively and financially
support the establishment of a national Pig Health Monitoring Scheme (see C
12 above).
7. The system of carcass grading and payment on carcass lean content
should be applied to all licensed export premises slaughtering over 200 pigs
per week and be regularly checked by the Department of Agriculture and
Food as required by legislation and with appropriate funding as per the Beef
Classification Scheme.
8. The use of the newer carcass classification methods, e.g. Autofom, for
measuring carcass lean meat content should be assessed and, if suitable,
approved.
9. The formula used for calculation of lean meat content should be updated
at intervals of 5 to 8 years.
10. The process at EU level for authorisation of GM feed ingredients (after
completion of safety assessment by EFSA) should be speeded up to avoid
the problems with importations such as have occurred during 2007.
G. FEED
Feed represents the single largest item of cost in producing pigs at, at least,
65%. Feed costs in Ireland are higher than in any of the main EU pigmeat
producing countries. This reflects the higher cost of feed ingredients to feed
manufacturers but high feed manufacturing and delivery costs here also
contribute to the significant disadvantage that arises.
1. Pig producers should reassess their feeding programmes with a view to
using less of the expensive diets i.e. creep, link and weaner feeds.
2. The cost-benefit of using high nutrient specification diets should be
independently evaluated for weaners, finishers and lactating sows.
3. Pig producers should demand independent evaluation of the cost-benefit
before including expensive ingredients and additives in diets.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 15 30/01/2012
4. Pig feed prices in Ireland are uncompetitive. Feed compounders must
target a reduction in the pig feed price differential between Ireland and
other EU member states.
5. Feed industry costs in Ireland should be benchmarked internally and
against best practice internationally.
6. Manufacturers should declare the inclusion levels of ALL ingredients (or
nutrients) included in premixes.
H. RESEARCH
In the absence of an effective research and development programme the pig
and pigmeat industry will at best stagnate and is more likely to regress. By
comparison with the pig sectors in very many other countries the Irish
investment in research and development, on a per pig basis is paltry. Pigmeat
amounts to about 40% of per capita meat consumption in Ireland, with poultry
about 30% and beef 20%. It is perceived that the eating quality of Irish
pigmeat compares unfavourably with that in other countries.
1. Producer and slaughterer investment in pig research and development is
unsatisfactory and should be increased to 25c per pig which is still less than
that in most other countries.
2. Arising from recommendation H 1 above, the Teagasc research portfolio
of near-market (more applied) pig production research should be greatly
expanded and include more on-farm studies.
3. An on-going programme of research should be conducted on the quality
of Irish pigmeat with specific reference to the perception of dryness/lack
of juiciness, salt levels, boar taint, and overall eating quality.
4. The Ashtown Food Research Centre should play an increased role in
pigmeat research and development. There is a need for the centre to have
an active on-going programme on pigmeat quality and be the resource base
of first call for the pigmeat processing industry.
5. A research study should be carried out to establish how the genetic
material available to pig producers compares with that in other countries in
relation to such key parameters as Litter Size and Growth Rate.
6. Factors affecting P loss from soil to water should be investigated and
the suitability of an indexing system for Ireland based on the Iowa P index
should be investigated (see recommendation no. B 6 above).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 16 30/01/2012
I. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The levels of technical efficiency reported for recorded herds in countries such
as Denmark, France and the Netherlands show significant improvement over the
last decade in contrast to Ireland where performance has been static. Reduced
expenditure in research and technology transfer is a contributory factor to this
loss of competitiveness. The methods used for technology transfer have to be
adjusted to take account of the changing structure of the industry, reduced
resources, changes in the labour force on units and herd health considerations.
1. Teagasc should establish and staff a training programme for operatives
and managers with appropriate certification which would be part-funded
from the increased R&D contribution (recommendation H 1).
2. The Teagasc Pig Development unit should continue to evaluate and expand
the methods used for technology transfer in the light of changes in herd
structure. This would include more frequent electronic communications.
3. Teagasc should offer a record analysis and performance benchmarking
service (PigSys) independent of advisory contracts.
4. Teagasc Pig Development Unit should continue to liaise with their
Northern Ireland counterparts in service delivery.
J. BORD BIA
Pigmeat exports represent a substantial proportion of total pigmeat production
and especially when allowance is made for the 0.45-0.5 million pigs exported live,
mainly to Northern Ireland. Bord Bia has responsibility for marketing of Irish
pigmeat abroad as well as for the promotion of pigmeat on the home market.
Bord Bia is responsible for the development and operation of Pigmeat Quality
Assurance Scheme. The work of Bord Bia is not always evident to producers who
contribute 25c per pig by way of levy to its operations. This contribution is low
by international standards.
1. An Bord Bia should provide an annual report to pig producers of its
activities and expenditure on pigmeat promotion and marketing.
2. The Bord Bia Quality Assurance Scheme should be established as the
norm for the industry with full participation by producers and slaughterers.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 17 30/01/2012
K. PIG HEALTH PROTECTION
As an island there is a reasonable expectation that all of Ireland would be free
of many serious and debilitating diseases of pigs. Despite stringent efforts on
the part of the industry and breeding companies in particular new health
problems continue to arise with very serious impact on production and
profitability. In recent years both Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory
Syndrome (PRRS) and Post-Weaning Multi-systemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS)
have become serious problems.
1. Close co-operation should be established with Northern Ireland
authorities in ensuring that the AD eradication programmes in both
jurisdictions is successful with a view to establishing a common and superior
health status for the island.
2. The current role of the National Pig Health Council should be reviewed
and consideration should be given to having a similar body operate on an all-
island basis with annual reporting of its activities.
3. Implementation of development planIt is proposed that a body representative of the stakeholders in the
industry (IFA, NCPP, IAPP, IGFA, DAFF, Bord Bia, Teagasc) under an
authoritative, independent chairperson should be set up to meet twice
yearly, to monitor progress on this development plan and make its findings
public within 4 weeks of its meetings. This would be similar to the Sheep
Industry Implementation Group set up in 2006 (DAFF, 2006) and the
recently announced Beef Forum (DAFF, 2007). Subject to agreement from
Northern Ireland this body might invite participation from the NI pig
industry.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 18 30/01/2012
4. IntroductionThe Irish pig industry, at the present time, is at a crossroads. It is buffeted
by regulations such as the Nitrates Action Plan (SI 378 of 2006; EC Good
Agricultural Practice for Protection of Water Regulations of 2006), welfare
legislation and perceived hostility from regulators. Most producers are reluctant
to invest in an industry that has an uncertain future and where the return on
investment is perceived to be less than is available elsewhere. There is a need
for an action plan or development plan, which would have a considered input from
the several stakeholders in the sector. This plan would provide a focus for the
future direction of production.
The plan would include realistic targets to be achieved within a specified time
based on a business planning approach.
Earlier Development Plans for the pig industry included Teagasc (1997), IFA
(1999) and Prospectus Report (2000). Recent development plans for pig
industries worldwide include the UK (BPEX, 2006c), Australia (APL, 2005) and
Canada (Canadian Pork Council, 2007; Grier and Mussell, 2007).
4.1. Objective of study
The objective of this exercise is to prompt an in-depth analysis of the industry
by individuals and by representative bodies of stakeholders and to identify
strategies that would improve the competitive position of the industry
internationally.
4.2. Methodology
Stakeholders were notified by a special issue Teagasc Pigs newsletter in May
2006 and interested parties were invited to make written submissions. The
newsletter included a draft SWOT analysis of the pig industry. Some bodies
and individuals made phone contact with the authors. The views of the
contributors were then distilled into a strategy document by the members of
the Teagasc Pig Production Development Unit staff whose names are listed in
Appendix 1. The draft recommendations were presented to representatives of
stakeholder organisations and feedback was requested.
4.3. Drivers of change in the pig industry
The major influences which will shape the form and scale of the Irish pig
industry over the next decade are the following:
1. International competitiveness
2. Market returns, profitability and return on investment
3. Food safety
4. Environmental legislation
5. Animal welfare legislation
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 19 30/01/2012
6. Rapid adoption of new technology
7. Entry of highly skilled personnel and their retention in the industry
5. Background5.1. The Irish pig industry
Pig production is an important sector of the agricultural economy of Ireland
ranking third in Gross Agricultural Output (GAO) after milk (30%) and beef
(25% - Table 5.1) . Pigmeat amounts to about 6% of GAO while sheep account
for about 4%. The value of pigmeat exports in 2006 was €250m per annum and
live pig exports were worth an additional €50 million.
Table 5.1. Value of Gross Agricultural Output from principal commodities 2001 to
2006
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total 5099 4709 4849 5031 4964 5109
Milk 1566 1413 1432 1418 1337 1323
Cattle 1260 1179 1244 1346 1413 1479
Sheep 284 202 193 200 192 190
Pigs 346 301 285 297 292 312
Pigs % of total 6.8 6.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.1
Source: CSO
5.2. The national herd
There are about 155,000 breeding sows in Ireland and about 1.7 million pigs in
all. Trends in herd size and output are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Pig population (December census) and pig output in Ireland 2000 to
2006
Year No. Sows
December
(000)
Total
No.
pigs
(000)
Slaughterings
Licenced
Export
(000)
Slaughterings
Other
(000)
Live
Exports
(000)
Total Pig
Disposals
(000)
2000 167 1,732 3,048 99 237 3,384
2001 169 1,763 3,196 62 63 3,322
2002 165 1,781 3,038 68 368 3,473
2003 158 1,732 2,834 62 469 3,366
2004 158 1,758 2,684 60 426 3,170
2005 156 1,678 2,618 25 520 3,163
2006 149 1,620 2,619 25 475 3,124
Source: CSO and Bord Bia
See Appendix 2 for statistics 1980 to 2000.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 20 30/01/2012
5.3. Ownership and operation of pig units in Ireland
Worldwide ownership of pig production units falls into three principal models:
Vertical integration
Co-operative ownership
Independent producer
Vertical integration which has driven the US pig industry in the past decade has
not occurred in Ireland. In this model, the pig farmer is a contractor to the
meat packer who owns the pigs and supplies the feed and the farmer supplies
the housing and labour. It is similar to that operated by the poultry industry in
Ireland.
“In the US, four corporations account for 65% of the slaughter capacity, 30
corporations represent 50% of production and a handful of processors own and
control 25% of production, The result, large quantities of pork of similar quality
and based on a definitive genetic and production system” according to Buoma
(2006).
The majority of pig production units in Ireland are independently operated and
are family owned. There are a small number of units operated by (1) feed
companies or meat companies, and (2) co-operatives which evolved from co-
operative pig finishing units which operated a central finishing farm purchasing
pigs from shareholder suppliers, most of whom had very small units. These
finishing units had difficulty in avoiding respiratory and enteric diseases due to
co-mingling of the incoming pigs from several units.
Traditionally the Irish pig industry developed alongside the dairy industry and
through the period from 1960 to 1980 large pig units became operational in
areas where there was a supply of milk by-products - whey (from cheese and
casein production) and skim milk e.g. Mitchelstown Co. Cork, South Tipperary,
Cavan.
Nowadays, many pig units tend to be specialised (i.e. sole or principal enterprise
on the farm) though there are a significant number of pig units operating on
farms with another enterprise (usually grassland based). These farms face
particular difficulty in complying with SI 378 of 2006.
On account of unit size (see section 5. 6 below) there is a high proportion of
paid labour (including unit management) on Irish pig units. The restructuring of
the pig industry in Ireland in the 1970s means that a high proportion of owners
and operators are now in the older age category and will be more cautious, less
innovative and more likely to exit the industry in response to low profitability or
legislative change.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 21 30/01/2012
5.4. Pig output
Pig slaughterings increased from c. 2.0 millions in 1985 to c. 3.0 millions in 1993
and numbers have been relatively stable since then (Table 5.2 and 5.3). Because
of movement of pigs for slaughter into and out of Northern Ireland it is
important to examine the pattern of slaughterings in the entire island rather
than the Republic alone.
Table 5.3. Pig Slaughterings on island of Ireland (000 head)
Year Republic of
Ireland
Northern Ireland Total
2001 3,259 1,067 4,326
2002 3,104 1,228 4,332
2003 2,867 1,324 4,190
2004 2,707 1,311 4,018
2005 2,618 1,195 3,813
2006 2,619 1,297 3,916
Source Bord Bia Market Monitor
5.5. Geographical distribution
Table 5.4 shows the distribution of pigs by county, the utilised agricultural area
(UAA) and the density of pigs in each. The three largest pig-producing counties
are Cavan (40,000 sows), Cork (38,000 sows) and Tipperary (14,000 sows)
representing 52% of the national sow herd. The next two largest counties are
Waterford (9,000) and Longford (7,700).
The contribution of pigs (and poultry) to the Organic N loading in Ireland is low
even within counties perceived to have a high density of pigs (Table 5.4).
County Cavan at 3.5ha/sow has the highest density of production in Ireland
whereas Co. Longford with the next highest has 9.6 ha per sow. Production in
Cavan is in the east and south of the county adjacent to Co. Meath where the
density is low at 47ha per sow.
Tillage land in Ireland amounts to only 9% of utilised agricultural area and by
county this varies from over 30% in Dublin, Louth and Wexford to around 1% in
the Western counties and Longford. Among the counties with a high density of
pigs Cavan has 2% tillage and Cork has 13% (Table 5.5; Appendix Table 4).
The overall density of pig production, expressed as the agricultural area used
(AAU) per sow, in Ireland (25.7ha/sow) is low when compared to the
Netherlands (1.9ha), Denmark (2.0ha) and Belgium (2.2ha). Within these
countries entire provinces/regions have under 1.0ha per sow e.g. N. Brabant and
Limburg in Netherlands and Flanders in Belgium while Brittany (<3ha) and
Catalonia (<2.0ha) also have intensive pig industries (Table 5.6).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 22 30/01/2012
Table 5.4. Sow and pig numbers by county2005
COUNTY NUMBER TOTAL SOWS FINISHERS
Clare 5 1,320 6,000
Galway 5 495 2,870
Mayo 14 2,650 13,270
Roscommon 5 1,830 9,300
Sligo 2 885 4,500
Leitrim 7 2,445 12,550
Longford 13 7,690 35,000
Donegal 20 3,450 18,300
Carlow 8 1,304 12,070
Kilkenny 21 5,760 30,900
Wicklow 6 1,440 17,790
Laois 11 4,720 24,620
Wexford 25 4,937 23,865
Louth 2 1,200 4,600
Meath 14 4,558 22,550
Dublin 1 0 500
Kildare 15 3,775 13,350
Offaly 17 5,555 17,500
Westmeath 15 6,215 37,950
Cavan 67 27,450 154,475
Monaghan 18 3,350 18,850
Cork 86 29,245 150,968
Kerry 18 4,345 23,320
Tipperary 36 17,093 78,370
Waterford 19 7,815 49,746
Limerick 12 4,755 25,500
TOTAL 462 154,282 808,714
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 23 30/01/2012
Table 5.5. Density of pigs in Ireland by county (year = 2000) and contribution of pigs and poultry to Organic Nitrogen loading.Area Farmed All Pigs Breeding Pigs Pig/100 ha Sows / 100ha Sows / 100ha
tillageON load,kg/ha
Pigs as % ON Pigs +Poultry as %ON
000 ha
Ireland 4443 1722 176.85 38.8 4.0 44.1 106 3.1 4.1
Leinster 1346 484 48.2 36.0 3.6 19.0 108 2.7 3.0
Longford 73.8 72.0 7.7 98.0 10.4 854.4 107 7.9 8.0
Munster 1657 715.8 73.9 43.2 4.5 63.1 117 3.1 4.0
Cork 533.8 364.1 38.5 68.2 7.2 57.6 128 4.7 5.2
Limerick 202 55.5 6.0 27.5 2.9 212.5 128 1.9 4.9
Waterford 124.4 88.5 8.6 71.1 6.9 56.3 135 4.2 6.5
Connaught 971 68.2 7.3 7.0 0.8 48.1 85 0.7 1.0
Ulster 469 454 47.4 96.8 10.1 334.1 106 7.9 12.9
Cavan 138.3 374.6 39.5 270.9 28.6 1881.9 133 17.8 19.3
Monaghan 99.6 40.1 4.0 40.3 4.0 222.8 153 2.2 16.4
Max 533.8 374.6 39.5 270.9 28.6 1881.9 153 17.8 19.3
Min 37.7 0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 58 0.0 0.3
Only counties where pig and poultry contribute more than 4% to the Organic Nitrogen load are shown. For full list see Appendix Table 3.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 24 30/01/2012
Table 5.6. Density of pig production in regions within EU countries
Country Million pigs UAA
(1000ha)
Pigs/km2
UAA
Netherlands south west NE 10.2 815 1,257
Flanders BEL 5.9 618 949
Catalonia SP 6.6 1,182 559
Denmark Jutland DK 10.3 1,892 543
Brittany FR 8.4 1,791 469
Nord Rhine-Westphalia GER 6.2 1,522 406
Lombardy IT 4.2 1,120 371
Murcia SP 2.2 629 342
Lower Saxony GER 8.0 2,626 306
Grand Poland POL 5.1 1,763 287
Kujawsko-Pomorskie POL 2.2 1,036 210
Aragon SP 4.7 2,417 195
Baden-Wurtemburg GER 2.3 1,444 158
Emilia-Romagna IT 1.6 1,234 132
Bavaria GER 3.7 3,293 113
Mazovie POL 2.1 2,046 101
Estremadura SP 1.8 2,233 79
Castille-Leon SP 3.7 5,127 73
Pays de Loire FR 1.7 2,311 72
East Hungary HUN 2.1 3,336 64
Andalusia SP 2.3 4,813 48
Castille –La Mancha SP 1.6 4,718 35
Ireland IRE 1.7 4,443 39
Cavan IRE 0.37 138 271
100ha = 1km2. Source: IFIP 2007. Data are for 2006 except Poland and Hungary 2005.
Only regions with more than 1.6 million pigs are included
5.6. Distribution by unit size
There are now few pigs (<2%) in units of under 100 sows and in general units of
under 300 sows are tending to account for a smaller share of the national herd.
Table 5.7 shows the results of a recent Teagasc survey
Pig units in Ireland tend to be large by European standards (Table 5.8) but
average herd sizes in the other European countries are rapidly moving towards
the Irish model. In Denmark average herd size has gone from 345 (total pigs
equal to about 35 sows) in 1991 to near 2,000 today and is forecast to reach
4,000 in 2015. In that period the number of pig iunits in Denmark will have gone
from about 28,000 to 3,500 (Roguet, 2007).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 25 30/01/2012
While a majority of sows in Ireland (c. 72%) are in units which are above the
licensing threshold, the majority of units (c. 64%) are under this threshold.
Most of these smaller units are on mixed farms with another animal enterprise,
often dairy cows.
Table 5.7. Distribution of breeding sows by herd size
Sow Herd Size Sows (No. units)
Integrated Breed Total % of
sows
<100 2,264 (35) 505 (9) 2,769 2
100-199 6,963 (50) 1,110 (8) 8,073 5
200-299 15,483 (64) 1,915 (8) 17,398 11
300-499 17,905 (48) 3,635 (9) 21,540 14
500-999 38,229 (58) 8,656 (13) 46,885 31
1000-1999 29,795 (24) 6,870 (4) 36,665 24
>2000 19,610 (9) 0 19,610 13
Total 130,249 22,691 152,940 100
Source: Teagasc survey 2007.
Table 5.8. Distribution of pig herds by size (Ireland and selected EU countries)
<20 sows 20 to 99 >99 Average sow
herd, no.
Germany 4 28 68 66
Spain 5 16 78 69
Poland 70 16 14 4
Denmark 1 4 95 234
Netherlands 0 4 96 225
France 1 17 82 111
Belgium 1 29 79 107
UK 3 8 88 82
Italy 7 9 83 43
Ireland 0 2 98 424
EU-25 13 17 71 21
Source: IFIP 2006. Data are for 2003. Data for Ireland from Teagasc are for 2005
5.7. Employment in the pig industry
The direct employment at farm level amounts to at least 1,200 persons (based
on a national sow herd of 155,000 and one person employed full-time for 130
sows). At present at least 26% of employees on pig units are non-Irish, mainly
East European. There are large numbers employed in the other various sectors
within the overall pig industry. These include haulage, slaughtering, meat
processing, feed manufacture and transport, building services, veterinary
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 26 30/01/2012
services and supplies, manure transport and spreading, financial services and
office staff, etc. The total employment attributable to the pig sector is
estimated at about 7,500. This is consistent with estimates of jobs per million
pigs produced in the US (Salazar and McNamara, 2005) and Canada (MAFRI,
2002).
Attracting talented young people into the pig industry was identified by Ellis
(2006) as an important factor in determining its future competitiveness.
Kliebenstein et al (2006) found that fewer young people were entering pig
production in the US and the average age of US pig producers rose by 4.1 years
in the five year period from 2000 to 2005. From 1990 to 2005 (15 year period)
the average age of producers rose by 8.1 years and that of employees rose by
9.1 years.
5.8. Public perception of the pig industry
The Irish pig industry suffers from a negative image, with the sector being
associated with deteriorating water quality, offensive odours, residues in meat
and poor welfare for animals. There is scant objective evidence for many of
these claims but the industry has been remiss in not being pro-active in
portraying the positive aspects of the industry, its contribution to employment
in rural development and as an economical source of high quality meat for
consumers.
6. The global pig industryThe world pig population is, at present, about 820 millions and the number has
increased steadily over the last 50 years from about 300 million in c. 1950
(Pond, 1991). While the majority of pig numbers are in Asia (Table 6.1; Table
6.2), commercial pig production is carried out mostly in Europe and North
America.
World wide, production of pigmeat exceeds that of any meat and demand is
expected to continue to rise over the next 20 years (Table 6.3; Elam, 2004).
Supplying the meat requirements of more affluent world population is seen as a
major challenge in terms of feed supply and environmental protection (FAO,
2006a; Steinfeld et al., 2006).
While consumption of both beef and sheepmeat has been stagnant between 1991
and 2001 pigmeat consumption has increased by 28% and 65% respectively. This
rate of expansion in consumption of the two “white meats” is projected to
continue to 2025 (Elam, 2004), by 62% in pigmeat and by 73% in the case of
poultry. This demand can only be satisfied with minimal environmental impact by
efficient, intensive production systems.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 27 30/01/2012
Table 6.1. Pig population in major regions of the world
Source: Livestock and Poultry: World markets and trade March 2006. Foreign Agricultural
Service USDA http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2006/06-03LP/swine_sum.pdf (Nov 1, 2006)
http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2006/2006%20Annual/Livestock&Poultry.pdf
Table 6.2. Annual pig slaughterings in major regions of the world (2001 to 2006)
6.1. North America
Pig slaughterings in the US in 2005 amounted to 105 million head. About 12% of
production is exported. Traditionally pig production in North America was
concentrated in the grain growing states of the US Midwest especially Iowa,
Indiana and Illinois. The 1980s saw a shift in production to states such as
North Carolina where large production units became common often owned by
corporate entities. Later, states in the south west such as Oklahoma saw rapid
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 28 30/01/2012
increases. Low population density, an arid climate and less opposition to
development of units were important factors.
Table 6.3. World meat consumption and projected demand (million tonnes)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2025
Beef, veal 28 38 48 54 56 73
Pork 25 39 53 71 91 147
Poultry 9 16 28 43 71 123
Sheep 5 6 6 7 8 8
Misc 5 6 7 9 11 15
Total 71 105 139 184 237 366
Source: Elam (2004)
However, the drivers of location of livestock enterprises are not well
understood (Carpentier et al, 2004). Informa Economics (2005) concluded that
the behaviour of key firms and state legislation (family farm legislation,
environmental regulations) were more important than natural resources in
determining whether a regional pig industry expands or contracts. As examples
Georgia and North Carolina with similar climates, cultures and natural resources
both had about 2 million pigs in 1984. In 2004 North Carolina had about 10
million and Georgia had about 0.3 million. In the same period Indiana in the
“cornbelt” went from 4.5 million to 3.0 million and Oklahoma went from c. 0.2
million to c. 2.5 million (Informa Economics, 2005).
The most pronounced change in US production over the past 25 years has been
in sow productivity. The size of the US breeding herd (sows, gilts, boars)
declined from about 10 million to about 6 million while pigmeat production per
sow per year has almost doubled going from 725kg to 1360kg (Informa
Economics, 2005; NASS 2006).
The scale of slaughtering plants is another notable feature of the US industry
with twelve plants each slaughtering over 4 million pigs per year (15,000 per day)
and one slaughtering 8 million per year or 30,000 per day (Informa Economics,
2005). World wide, only one Danish plant compares in capacity to the US plants.
Japan is the destination of about 35% of US pigmeat exports with Mexico
taking another 15 to 20% (Marche du Porc Breton, 2007).
In Canada, pig production is predominantly in Quebec (30% of national herd),
Ontario (25%), Manitoba (20%), Alberta (15%) and Saskatchewan (10%) (Source:
Statistics Canada). Over the past 10 years, there has been a significant shift in
Canadian production to the grain-growing, prairie provinces of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. Between 1991 and 2006 the Canadian pig herd increased by 40%
while the herd in Manitoba increased by 130% and that in Saskatchewan by 67%
(Statistics Canada; Patience 1993). Canadian pig production has, in relative
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 29 30/01/2012
terms increased more rapidly than the US industry coming from about one
seventh of US production in 1980 to about one fourth today and now Canada
exports about half its production (Haley, 2004). A change in the economics of
exporting grain from the prairie provinces made pig rearing more attractive than
grain exporting. Canadian production was 23 million pigs in 2005.
The expansion of bioethanol from corn in the US and from wheat in Canada
coinciding with tight world wheat supplies has resulted in a very great increase
in feed costs in both countries and will delay further expansion and may even
lead to herd contractions in both countries (Elobeid et al., 2006). Canadian pig
producers are said to be suffering catastrophic losses during the second half of
2007 arising from a combination of high feed prices and low pig prices which are
partly due to the appreciation of the Canadian dollar against the US dollar
(Marche du Porc Breton, 2007).
6.2. South America
South America in particular Brazil has been the location for significant
expansion in pig production in the recent past and both production and exports
of pigmeat have been growing rapidly. Production in 2005 was 35 million head.
Difficulties with animal disease notably foot and mouth can cause disruption to
Brazilian exports (GAIN Report BR6622, 2006).
Major US pig producing companies have begun to develop pig production units in
South America and Mexico. They are attracted by low feed prices, plenty land,
plentiful and cheap labour, favourable weather, a growing domestic market and a
more benign regulatory environment (Roppa, 2005). The South American pig
herd numbers about 57 million head and about 65% of production is in Brazil
(Roppa, 2005). The latter stated that only about 14% of Brazilian land is farmed
compared with 42% in the US and 52% in the EU-15.
6.3. Other countries
Former Soviet Union Animal production in the countries of the former Soviet
Union has declined severely since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Russia has
become an important importer of pigmeat and is likely to remain so despite
government encouragement for pig production. Russia is Brazil’s most important
export market (Marche du Porc Breton, 2007)
Australian pigmeat production is constrained by a high grain price partly due to
restrictions on imports of whole grain. The current 2006/2007 drought in
Australia will have a severe impact on pig production (GAIN Report AS6057,
2006). There has been an increase in Australian exports to countries such as
Singapore over the past number of years (Mullan, 2004). Nevertheless
Australia remains a net importer of pigmeat (FAS USDA, 2006)
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 30 30/01/2012
7. The EU pig industryThe EU pig population is about 154 million head and slaughterings amounted to
245 million in 2006 (IFIP 2007; Table 7.1)
Table 7.1. EU-25 pig population and slaughterings in principal pig producing
countries (2006)
Country Sows1
(m)
Total pigs1
(m)
Slaughterings
(m)
Pigmeat
(000
tonnes)
Self-
sufficiency
%2
Germany 2.46 26.6 47.6 4,057 94
Spain 2.70 26.0 37.9 3,218 129
France 1.26 15.0 25.7 2,356 107
Poland 1.79 18.8 23.1 2,050 103
Denmark 1.41 13.6 22.4 1,821 617
Netherlands 1.05 11.2 14.5 1,586 232
Italy 0.77 9.3 12.9 1,514 68
Belgium/Lux 0.58 6.3 11.0 1,043 196
UK 0.52 4.7 9.2 687 45
Austria 0.23 2.6 5.3 473 100
Portugal 0.31 2.3 5.1 300 61
Hungary 0.33 5.0 4.9 606 93
Czech
republic
0.34 4.0 4.2 390 78
Sweden 0.18 1.7 3.2 276 92
Finland 0.18 1.4 2.4 193 116
Ireland 0.17 1.6 2.6 239 137
Total EU 27 15.5 161.0 202 21,371 108
Source: (1) December pig census – Eurostat);; IFIP (2007); DMA (2006)2Self sufficiency figures are for 2005 - IFIP
7.1. Germany
The German pig herd is the largest in the EU at about 26 million head. German
pigmeat output accounts for about 19% of EU-25 output. The German herd
dropped by about 20% in the early 1990s but has recovered and output in 2005
was similar to output in 1990 (ITIF, 2006). Average herd size in Germany is low
at c. 66 sows. Movement of pigs from specialised breeding herds to finishing
herds is an important feature of German pig production. Many finishers have
left houses empty in response to high feed prices and low pig prices leaving
producers of weaned pig receiving uneconomic prices through the second half of
2007. It is little wonder that sow slaughterings in Germany have increased
sharply in the autumn of 2007 (Marche du Porc Breton, 2007).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 31 30/01/2012
7.2. Spain
Spain has the second largest pig herd in the EU after Germany and accounts for
about 15% of EU-25 pigmeat production. Between 1990 and 2005 Spanish
production increased by 81% (ITIF 2006). The province of Catalonia has a pig
density of 534 pigs/km2 UAA. Average herd size in Spain is low at 69 sows.
7.3. Denmark
Denmark is the world leader in producing and marketing pigmeat. It accounts
for about 9% of EU output and despite a high density of pig production (525
pigs/km2 in 2005 in Continental Denmark) has managed to increase output by
over 60% between 1990 and 2005. Denmark produces about six times as much
pigmeat as the home market can absorb (ITIF, 2006). Exports of live pigs from
Denmark are increasing rapidly from 2.3 million in 2004 to 4.4 million in 2006.
The increase in live pig exports is causing concern to the major slaughter plants
and is being attributed to stricter environmental regulations and lower labour
costs in Poland which is a recipient for many of the exported pigs (Nijland,
2006).
7.4. Netherlands
The Netherlands is a major exporter of pigmeat. For many years there has
been concern over the environmental effect of a high concentration of pig
production especially in the south of the country and a high density of other
farm animals combined with a high density of humans. Government policies have
imposed restrictions on manure loadings on farms and encouraged the movement
of manure to areas of the country with fewer livestock. There has also been a
“buy-out” scheme for producers prepared to exit the industry and cease
production.
Dutch pigmeat production has fallen by about 14% between 1990 and 2005.
Nevertheless the numbers and density remain high with the pig density in the
south east of the country at 1,198 per km UAA is the highest for any region in
the EU. Cavan the county with the highest density of pigs in Ireland has 271
pigs/km2 UAA
7.5. France
France has about 10% of the EU-25 pig herd and production is concentrated in
Brittany and surrounding provinces. Because of the high density of pigs and
cattle in Brittany and a high Organic Nitrogen loading, manure processing has
become common on farms. In many cases after separation of the manure into
solid and liquid, the P-rich solid fraction is composted before being exported
long distances to cropland and the N-rich liquid is denitrified.
This process may be environmentally unsound when the energy requirement for
processing is considered but it does allow pig producers to comply with EU
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 32 30/01/2012
legislation and stay in production. The manure being degraded could substitute
for chemical fertiliser thereby saving fossil fuel and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
7.6. UK and Northern Ireland
The UK pig industry was for a longtime a world leader in technology and
productivity. The industry went into steady decline during the 1990s and
currently the herd is just over half what it was at peak. Breeding pig numbers
declined from 800,000 in 1998 to 448,000 in 2005 and slaughterings fell from
14.4 million head in 1995 to 9.1 million in 2005 (BPEX, 2006a). As a result UK
self-sufficiency in all pig meat has fallen to about 55% (Table 7.2) to 42% in the
case of ham and bacon (Figure 7.1) and to 60% in the case of pork (Figure 7.2).
Sources within the UK pig industry forecast a loss of a further 20 - 25% of the
sow herd in response to producer losses in 2007.
Table 7.2. Trends in the UK pigmeat production (000 t) and market self-sufficiency
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Production 836 792 796 800 781
Consumption 1,251 1,311 1,290 1,290 1390
Net imports 518 607 601 597 609
Imports %
consumption
41 46 47 46 45
BPEX (2006a); DEFRA 2007
Figure 7.1. UK self sufficiency in ham and bacon (Source:
http://www.ukagriculture.com/farming_today/livestock_self_sufficiency.cfm)
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 33 30/01/2012
Figure 7.2. UK self sufficiency in pork (Source:
http://www.ukagriculture.com/farming_today/livestock_self_sufficiency.cfm)
Within the UK breeding pigs were distributed as follows in 2005: England 81%,
Scotland 10%, Northern Ireland, 8% and Wales 1% (BPEX 2006a).
The decline in the UK pig herd can be attributed mainly to low profitability but
the introduction of new animal welfare legislation which was out of step with
that in other EU countries (and the building investment required for compliance)
was also important. Despite the stated commitment of UK retail chains to give
preference to home produced pig meat and to import only pig meat produced to
“UK standards” and to consumer research indicating that consumers are very
concerned about pig meat imports that fail to meet ULK pig welfare legislation,
about 70% of imports in 2005 are from systems deemed illegal in the UK, up
from 66% in 2004. It is clear that price is the main factor in sourcing imports
to the UK (BPEX, 2006b).
Other factors which contributed to the decline of the UK pig industry were the
strength of sterling against the Euro and the downsizing of an excellent
independent research and development service which supported the industry in
earlier years.
The British Pig Executive has recently launched a programme to renew
confidence in the pig industry by improved pig health, technology transfer, a
more benign regulatory environment and improved pork quality (BPEX, 2006c)
The Northern Ireland sow herd has decreased over the past decade from
around 70,000 in 1997-8 to around 40,000 today. Average pig unit size in
Northern Ireland is much smaller than in the republic. Movement of live pigs
and pigmeat between Northern Ireland and the Republic means that the island
should be treated as one market.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 34 30/01/2012
Table 6.3. Sow population in Northern Ireland 1996 to 2003 (000)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Sows 69 72 67 47 42 41 39 43 38 37 37 37
7.7. Poland
Poland has the third biggest pig population of the EU-25 and the largest of the
10 new states. In terms of output per million head in the national herd Poland is
well behind the top producers in the EU-15. The industry produced about 103 to
105% of annual consumption over the past few years but Poland has recently
become a net importer (Marche du Porc Breton, 2007). Pig herd size in Poland is
very small with the average sow herd being only four and only 14% of sows being
in herds of 100 or more (ITIF, 2006). However, Smithfield the US pig
production company and some Danish firms and individuals are beginning to set
up pig production and slaughtering operations in Poland. Some of this pigmeat is
destined for the UK where it will compete with Irish pigmeat.
7.8. Hungary
The Hungarian pig herd has declined by 54% between 1990 and 2005 and the UK
is the only other EU-25 country to suffer such a decline. Nevertheless Hungary
produces about 112% of annual consumption. Average sow herd size is about 6.
7.9. Other EU
Romania and Bulgaria
Romania has about 22 million inhabitants and about 6.5 million pigs and is at
present a net importer of pigmeat (DEFRA, 2006a; Garnier, 2006). According to
this report, annual pork consumption is about 29kg/person and imports (mainly
from Germany) account for about 25% of consumption. While most pigs are
produced in small units, Western companies are developing commercial units and
in the long term the country is considered to have export potential (Garnier,
2006).
Bulgaria has a population of about 7.5 million but only about 0.9 million pigs. Pork
production fell by over 50% between 2000 and 2006 (FAO, 2006b). While
there is rising demand for meat including pork import policies restrict imports
and the small size of units will limit output in the short term (GAIN Report
BU6007, 2006)
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 35 30/01/2012
8. Pigmeat consumption pattern and trends8.1. Global
The countries with the highest per capita pigmeat consumption are shown in
Table 8.1. Major beef eaters are Argentina 65kg/head, Australia 37 kg/head
and Brazil 37kg/head (FAS USDA 2006).
Table 8.1. Per capita meat consumption in selected countries 2006 (ranked on
pigmeat consumption).
Beef Pigmeat Broiler
Hong Kong 15 66 37
EU-25 18 44 16
China 6 40 8
Taiwan 5 41 30
US 43 30 46
Canada 32 27 30
Korea, South 27 13
Source FAS USDA, 2006
8.2. EU
Per capita pigmeat consumption in some selected EU countries is shown in Table
8.2. Per-capita pork consumption in the EU is increasing especially in the newer
member states as household incomes rise (GAIN Report E36107, 2006).
Table 8.2. Per capita meat consumption in selected EU countries, 2001
(kg/head/year)
Total
meat
Beef &
veal
Pigmeat Sheep and
goat
Poultry
Belgium/Lux 94 20 46 1.8 18
Denmark 114 23 63 1.3 21
Germany 88 10 54 1.1 19
Greece 91 19 32 13.5 20
France 107 25 37 4.2 26
Italy 91 23 38 1.6 18
Netherlands 87 19 43 1.4 22
Austria 98 18 56 1.2 18
Portugal 103 15 44 3.4 32
Finland 63 12 32 0.3 15
Sweden 73 21 35 1.0 14
UK 83 19 25 5.7 28
Source: Eurostat – Agriculture Statistical Yearbook 2001. Table 3.13
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 36 30/01/2012
8.3. Ireland
Per capita consumption of pig meat in Ireland is 38.4 kg per year and is
significantly greater than any other meat. (Table 7.3). Between 1992 and 2002
total meat consumption increased from 86 to 93kg per person and most of this
was due to an increase in poultry meat from 23.5 to 30.5kg.
Table 8.3. Per capita consumption of meat in Ireland 2002
Meat Kg per person
Pigmeat 38.3
Poultry 30.5
Beef 17.5
Sheep 5.2
Other 1.6
Total 93.1
Source: CSO
There is little reliable information on the demographic profile of pork
purchasers and pork consumers in Ireland or on their opinions on pork quality.
This information is urgently needed if producers and processors are to respond
to market demands.
Comparisons of Irish consumers' beliefs about pork and poultry showed that
poultry is viewed as the tastier, healthier and less expensive of the two meats
while pork is viewed as the safer meat. In the case of pork, health, eating
enjoyment, safety and animal welfare were most important determinants of
attitude with environment and price less so (McCarthy et al., 2004). In the US
there are racial, urban versus rural and income differences in pork consumers.
Their data suggests that the elderly and people on higher incomes consume less
pork (Davis and Lin, 2005).
8.4. Points of purchase of pork and bacon products
The multiple retailers are dominating the pigmeat market with the share of
butchers declining. While butchers account for about 11% of total meat and
poultry sales in Ireland they account for only 6% of pigmeat sales (Bord Bia,
unpublished).
8.5. Niche markets
Niche markets, by definition, are small and the premium price for premium cuts
is usually not sufficient to compensate for the lack of a price bonus for the
remainder of the carcass which must be sold on the commodity pigmeat market.
In Ireland the scattered nature of the human population makes it difficult to
economically service a niche market outside the larger population centres.
While some individuals may develop and service niche markets, these outlets, in
Ireland, are unlikely to absorb significant quantities of pigmeat.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 37 30/01/2012
In the US Honeyman et al (2006) claimed that 35 to 40 niche marketing groups
were active in Iowa in 2003 - some based on superior eating quality of particular
breeds such as Berkshire. These groups utilise various sales methods including
Internet sales, local abattoir sales, direct marketing, farmer networks, and
targeting to organized groups.
In France sales of “Label Rouge” pork have increased about 6-fold from 1990 to
2002 but has remained stable since then at about 1.2% of national pig output.
“Label Rouge” refers to meat which is produced to defined standards of
management and feed ingredients but is neither organic nor necessarily free-
range.
The fatty acid profile of carcass fat in pigs is very responsive to the fatty acid
profile of the diet and therefore it is relatively simple to change the
concentrations of poly-unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, omega-3 fatty acids if a
particular market requires this “healthier pork” (Lynch and Kerry, 2000).
8.6. Organic pig production
Organic pig production in Ireland is insignificant. The shortage and high price of
organic feed ingredients is a barrier, while the small size of the organic feed
market makes it difficult to attain a critical mass for manufacturing feed.
Organic poultry production faces similar constraints (O’Connell and Lynch,
2004). Organic pigmeat must be produced according to specified standards of
feed (in particular the use of organic ingredients), housing and healthcare and
must be certified by one of a number of organic bodies e.g. Irish Organic
Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA, 2006).
8.7. Free Range and outdoor production
In the late 1980s there was a significant investment in large-scale outdoor pig
production operations in Ireland with in excess of 5% of the sow herd being
outdoor at one time. Failure to achieve the expected premium price, low sow
productivity, feed wastage and difficult working conditions (as a result of
unfavourable weather, especially rain) combined to make out outdoor pig
production unprofitable and today only a very small number of sows are kept
outdoors. Control of Salmonella, which is a food safety concern, is more
difficult in outdoor operations to which wildlife has access.
Soil type and rainfall are important in determining whether outdoor production
is practical. Usually, outdoor production means that only the sows are kept
outdoors with the growing pigs being brought indoors to straw bedded or
conventional slatted housing at weaning. Feed usage is generally higher in
outdoor systems (due to wastage, consumption by birds and the animals being
below their lower critical temperature at times) and productivity is lower as a
result of higher mortality. Labour use is higher but housing costs are low.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 38 30/01/2012
Often, e.g. in the UK the area devoted to the pigs is part of the rotation on a
tillage farm. It is unlikely that outdoor pig production will become significant in
Ireland in the foreseeable future.
8.8. Straw based semi-outdoor production
Rearing of pigs in straw yards, which is a feature of UK production, is not
popular in Ireland though it was the norm a generation ago. These units often
have access to open yards but not to grazing. Shortage of straw in the pig
rearing areas, the cost of handling solid manure, inefficient use of feed and the
difficulty in maintaining hygiene levels are contributory factors. As with free
range production, pigs in these systems are vulnerable to Salmonella infection
from wildlife.
8.9. Market outlook
The global market outlook for pigmeat is good with worldwide consumption
expected to continue to grow even if the growth rate is expected to slow to 1.5
to 1.7% per year during the next 10 years (European Commission, 2007). The
challenge for the Irish pig industry is to be competitive on production costs and
secure consumer loyalty in the market.
Consumer studies from Bord Bia (Donoghue, 2007) have identified a number of
challenges for the pig meat sector including:
convenience is very important in selection of meat,
children tend to eat less pork than in the past
pork is seen as more difficult to cook than chicken or beef
pork is not seen as particularly healthy.
The industry needs to be more conscious of consumer priorities and support
pork quality feedback mechanisms.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 39 30/01/2012
9. Pigmeat Trade9.1. Global
The principal pigmeat exporting countries are the EU, US, Canada and Brazil
(Table 9.1) and the principal importing countries are Japan, Russia, US and
Mexico (Table 9.2). Note that a number of countries are in both lists.
Table 9.1. Principal global pork exporters (2006)
!000 tonnes carcass
wt equivalent
% of world exports
1 EU-25 1,400 27
2 US 1,346 26
3 Canada 1,100 21
4 Brazil 540 10
5 China 500 10
6 Chile 124 2
7 Mexico 65 1
8 Australia 56 1
Total 5,178 100
Source: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, 2006
Table 9.2. Principal global pork importers (2006)
!000 tonnes
carcass wt
equivalent
% of world
imports
1 Japan 1,250 30
2 Russian Federation 800 19
3 USA 463 11
4 Mexico 450 11
5 Hong Kong 310 7
6 Romania 288 7
7 Republic of Korea 254 6
8 Canada 140 3
9 Australia 90 2
10 Ukraine 45 1
11 Taiwan 33 1
Total 4232 100
Source: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA
9.2. Within EU
Within the EU, Denmark is the principal exporter and the UK is the main
importer. In terms of self-sufficiency in pigmeat, Denmark is highest of the
EU-25 while Greece and the UK are lowest (Table 7.1 above). The large deficit
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 40 30/01/2012
in the UK is especially important on account of its large population and proximity
to Ireland.
10. Irish exports and imports of pigmeatWhile Ireland is about 160% self-sufficient in pigmeat there are substantial
imports as shown below. Some of the imports are re-exported after processing.
Backs and loins account for a high proportion of the imports. This is at least in
part due to a consumer preference for pork from the back or loin (Bord Bia,
2002; Slevin, 2002; Hughes 2004). There is also an increase in demand for non-
traditional products such as Parma ham.
10.1. Exports
Between 1992 and 2006 the volume of pigmeat exported varied from a low of
100,000 tonnes in 1992 to a high of 135,000 in 1999. The destination of pigmeat
exports in recent years is shown in Table 10.1. The UK accounts for about half
the volume exported. Exports to Japan vary widely from year to year and
reached 16,000 tonnes in 1999. Russia was an insignificant market in the early
1980s. Pigmeat exports were worth €250 million in 2006.
Table 10.1. Destination of pigmeat exports from Ireland 2001 to 2006 (1,000
tonnes)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
UK (incl. NI) 65 66 56 56 62 68
France 16 7 4 3 4 6
Germany 16 11 12 10 12 11
Italy 8 6 4 3 3 3
Other EU 10 9 8 8 11 12
Japan 3 2 6 10 11 11
Russia 5 8 6 5 2 6
USA 1 3 2 4 3 2
Other non-EU 4 4 3 5 6 6
Total 126 114 102 104 114 125
Source: DAFF Compendium of Statistics 2007
10.2. Imports
Imports of pigmeat to Ireland have increased substantially in recent years
(Table 10.2).
10.3. Live exports
Exports of live pigs to Northern Ireland (NI) for slaughter have increased
substantially in recent years (Table 10.3). This is due an excess of slaughter
capacity in NI.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 41 30/01/2012
Table 10.2. Origin and volume of pigmeat imports 2000 to 2005 (1,000 tonnes)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
GB 12 13 13 17 20 18
Northern
Ireland
5 3 3 4 4 4
Denmark 4 6 5 5 9 9
Netherlands 9 8 9 7 5 6
Other EU 7 13 18 21 27 32
Non EU-15 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total 37 44 48 54 66 70
Source: CSO (trade data)
Table 10.3. Volume of live pig exports to NI 2000 to 2005 (000)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
269 306 387 426 519 475
Souce: Dept of Agriculture; Bord Bia
11.Pigmeat processing11.1. Slaughtering
The number of pigs produced in Ireland increased from c. 2.0 million per year in
the mid 1980s to over 3.0 million in 1993 and has fluctuated between 3.0 and 3.4
over the past several years. The number of pigs slaughtered is less than this
due to exports of live pigs for slaughter in Northern Ireland. The slaughtering
sector consists of three medium size plants (9,000 upwards per week) and a
number of smaller plants (up to 4,000 per week). Following a fire in the middle
of 2007 the plant at Glanbia Edenderry closed but has been reopened. The
weekly kill at Glanbia Roscrea has been temporarily increased.
The small scale of Irish plants places them at a significant cost disadvantage
compared with larger plants. A comparison of the cost structure of Canadian
pigmeat plants (average capacity 3,000 per day) versus US plants (average
capacity 13,000 per day) placed the advantage of the larger US plants at close
to €5.20 per pig (Grier and Mussell, 2007).
11.2. Location of slaughter plants
The location of the main slaughter plants and their weekly kill is shown on the
map below (Figure 11.1).
The small size of slaughter plants in Ireland is very clear when compared to
France where nine plants slaughter more than a millions pigs each per year
(20,000 per week). Eight of the nine are in Brittany, an area not much larger
than Munster, while the ninth is located in Pays de Loire close to the border
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 42 30/01/2012
with Brittany (ITIF, 2006). The ten largest plants in France had a combined
slaughter of over 13 million in 2006 and the largest (Cooperyl Lamballe)
slaughtered just over 2 million (IFIP 2007).
In Denmark Danish Crown (11 plants) slaughtered 18.7 million pigs in 2006,
follwed by Tican which slaughtered 1.6 million. Together these two accounted
for 79% of pigs produced in Denmark with private slaughterhouses taking 4% of
production and live exports 17% (4.4 million pigs) (Source: www.danishmeat.dk).
11.3. Relations between slaughter plants and suppliers
While few pig producers have formal contracts with meat plants, most would
supply all pigs to a single plant on a regular basis. However, there is sufficient
mobility among some suppliers that slaughter plants will only be certain of 75 to
80% of the following weeks supply by Friday afternoon. As a result factories
often operate under capacity with consequent inefficiencies and higher per pig
costs. Grier and Mussell (2007) estimated that a in a large slaughter plant
(40,000 per week) a drop in capacity utilisation from 91% to 89% would result in
an increase in slaughter cost of €0.80 per pig.
Competition by plants (including those in Northern Ireland) for the marginal pigs
is seen by producers as necessary for meat plants to pay a “reasonable price”.
Pig producers in Ireland express a high level of distrust of meat plants while
meat plants expect little loyalty from suppliers. Relations have improved in
recent years but still fall well short of the arrangements that exist in other
countries. Such trust would make long term supply contracts possible with
consequent improved factory efficiency.
Lack of committed supply has been identified as a factor in the closure of some
independent plants in the US, the decline of single plant operations and the
success of the very large integrated operators (Informa Economics Inc, 2005).
In Alberta, there is a move to form a “collaborative model” of pig production
where elements of the integrator model of the US industry and the co-operative
model from Denmark would be combined by all sectors of the industry (feed,
processing, producer) collaborating towards a common goal and sharing the
profits from the production chain from farm to fork (Buoma, 2006). The
author recognises the challenges of changing attitudes in Canada from one of
confrontation between producers and processors.
Meat plants need to engage with pig producers and explain exactly what type of
pig (genotype, carcass weight, conformation etc) is required by high-return
markets. At present, when pig supplies are tight, carcass specification appears
to become a secondary consideration to maximising throughput.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 43 30/01/2012
Statistics on cross-border movement of live pigs should be collated and
published promptly and regularly.
Figure 11.1. Location and approximate weekly kill of slaughter plants, 2007
Stephenson,
Ahoghill 4,000
Grampian,
Cookstown
17,000
Glanbia, Edenderry
10,000
Ballon, Carlow
1,200
Staunton
Timoleague 4,500
Dawn, Grannagh
11,000
Hayes, Ballinasloe
2,000
Glanbia, Roscrea
15,000
Green Pastures,
Drumlish 2,000
Grant, Derry
4,000
McCarren, Cavan
5,500
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 44 30/01/2012
11.4. Secondary processing
There are a large number of secondary processing plants who source pigmeat
either home produced or imported for processing and/or curing and sale to the
retail sector. There are many successful firms involved in this sector of the
pigmeat industry and they receive technical and training support from
Enterprise Ireland. The development of added value products is consistent with
government policy as set out in Agri Vision 2010 (2000) and Agri Vision 2015
(2004). While it might be desirable that these firms might source their
pigmeat in Ireland they cannot be compelled to do so. They can be expected to
do so if the product of the specification they require is available at a
competitive price.
Consumer demand for pigmeat is likely to continue to shift towards greater
convenience (BPEX 2006c).
There is little or no feed back from these processing operations to the primary
producer. This is regrettable since these firms are likely to be innovative in
their product lines and presentation and might have preferences for raw
material with particular attributes e.g. increased level of intramuscular fat.
12.Carcass payment systemPayment for pigmeat is based on carcass lean content within a specified weight
range. Within the preferred weight bands the basic price quoted for pigs is for
a carcass lean content of 54% with price adjustments of 2.54c/kg for every 1%
lean above and below 54% within the range 48% to 60%. Most pigs are
delivered to the plant by the supplier and a delivery bonus at a negotiated
agreed rate per pig is usually paid. This bonus is not related to the cost incurred
in making the delivery.
It is not clear that the current pricing grid is still that which best serves the
market and a reassessment of the pricing system is overdue.
12.1. Lean meat calculation
The EU system of grading pig carcases was introduced in Ireland with effect
from 1 January, 1989, under the Pig Carcase (Grading) Regulations, 1988. The
1988 Regulations have since been amended on a number of occasions (based on
dissection of a representative sample of carcasses) the most recent being S.I.
No. 413 of 2001 –European Communities (Pig Carcase (Grading)) (Amendment)
Regulations (2001). The majority of carcasses are graded using the Hennessey
Grading Probe. Back fat thickness and muscle depth are measured using this
instrument at a point 6 cm from the edge of the split back at the level of the
3/4 last rib. Lean Meat percentage is then estimated according to the following
formula:
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 45 30/01/2012
Lean Meat % = 60.30 - 0.847x1 + 0.147x2
where x1 and x2 represent back fat and muscle depths as measured by the
Hennessy Grading Probe above.
Under the grading legislation, all plants slaughtering in excess of 200 pigs per
week are obliged to grade pigs on a lean meat basis. Slaughtering plant operators
must furnish producers with a statement showing carcase number, carcase
weight, estimated percentage lean meat content and total price paid for each
pig. In practice pigs are rarely assessed for carcass lean content outside of the
three larger plants and tend to purchased on a flat rate basis.
The formula used to predict carcass lean by the grading probes is biased in that
it estimates gilts to have a higher lean meat percentage than entire boars. This
is a function of the location at which measurement is carried out with males
having both a thinner backfat and thinner eye muscle at that point i.e. between
the third and fourth last rib.
There is a need to confirm the accuracy of the grading formulae periodically
(every 5 to 8 years) as genotypes, management practices and slaughter weights
change.
There is distrust of the accuracy of the carcass grading system, claims of
consistent differences between plants and of variation between operators
within plants. This distrust is fuelled by the knowledge that there is little
discernible difference between producers with most having an average carcass
lean content of 58 to 58.5%.
This is close to the limit of 60% at which bonuses for carcass lean content cease
to be paid. If lean content is important, then the upper limit for payment should
be reassessed by negotiation between meat plants and pig producers. Trust in
the objectivity and reliability of the grading system would be enhanced by more
rigid monitoring by the Department of Agriculture and Food and by their
insistence that all plants, which are required by law to do so, carry out carcass
grading.
12.2. Preferred weight bands
Carcass weight at slaughter has shown a steady increase from c. 65kg in 1995 to
75kg in 2005 (PigSys 2005). An increased incidence of boar taint is a risk and is
probably inevitable with heavier pigs.
According to S.I. No. 434 of 1997, “un-castrated male pigs with a carcass
weight in excess of 80 kg, giving off, in the opinion of a veterinary inspector or
an authorised officer, a pronounced boar taint are to be marked and undergo one
of the treatments provided for in S.I. No. 126 of 1995 “. This legislation would
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 46 30/01/2012
appear flawed as boar taint is only detected during cooking and sophisticated
on-line detection methods for the main responsible compounds, skatole, and
androstenone, are not in commercial use.
The slaughter weight of pigs in Ireland is dictated largely by the minimum and
maximum weight limits set by the main processors and by their competitors for
pigs in Northern Ireland. Each processor has its own preferred weight range.
Table 12.1 shows the minimum and maximum weight limits for pigs at a typical
plant. It also shows the corresponding maximum and minimum liveweight bands
that should be used by producers to avoid price penalties.
Table 12.1. Range in sale weights to achieve maximum base price (typical plant
limits)
Min Max
Upper dead weight limit
(kg)
55 90
Safe kill out (%) 71 78
Live weight limit (kg) 77.5 115
Failure by a producer to comply with the maximum and minimum weights can be
very costly as discussed by Lawlor (2003) in Table 1 and Hawe and Donnelly
(2007).
Table 12.2. Deductions made by two processors for under and over weight pigs¶
Factory A Factory B
Wt. Range
(kg DW)
Penalty (c/kg) Wt. range
(kg DW)
Penalty
(c/kg)
0-45 No payment 18.3-44.9 -17
45-49.9 -50.78 45-48.9 -11
50-54.9 -12.69 49-50.9 -8
55-79.9 0 51-52.9 -4
80-89.9 -1.2 53-54.9 -3
90-99.9 -2.54 55-85.5 0
100+ Sow price 85.6-90.9 -9
91-99.9 -31
100-134.9 -59¶Information from plants
Processors will, however, accept pigs heavier than their maximum declared
weight limit from specific customers and especially in times of short supply.
Availing of this increase in slaughter weight (without penalty) is quite profitable
for the producer, since on a cost per kg dead weight basis, feed costs remain
relatively unchanged while non-feed costs are reduced.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 47 30/01/2012
There is some evidence that meat plants are finding difficulty in supplying some
products e.g. bone-in hams of the weight specification preferred by customers
(even if bone-in product is declining in importance) and of pork loins having to be
trimmed (with the trimmed portion down graded) to meet buyer weight
specifications.
Allen et al. (2001) reported on a factory survey (7 plants) of 350 pigmeat
samples (boars only) carried out in 1997 using a sniff panel of four trained
women known to be capable of detecting boar taint. They found that 8% of
samples had definite boar taint (detected by four out of four panellists) which
was similar to the findings of a survey carried out 4 years earlier. An additional
10% of the samples were described as having a high probability (three out of
four panellists detected taint) of having taint.
In general there was a very weak relationship between carcass weight and the
incidence of boar taint. However, closer examination of the data shows that the
detection level (by at least one member of the sniff panel) increased by to over
70% when carcass weight exceeds 85 kg dead (Table 12.3).
Table 12.3. Detection of boar taint by a trained panel of 4 women
Weight range (kg) 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 >85
% of samples with taint¶ 53 65 52 50 57 58 71
¶ Taint detected by one or more of the 4 sniff panellists
The sensitivity of Irish consumers to boar taint would appear to be lower than
that of other European consumers with the exception, perhaps, of the British.
However, as we export a considerable proportion of pigmeat produced in Ireland
we must endeavour to minimize its occurrence, so that market share is
maintained. The trend towards increasing slaughter weight in Ireland must for
this reason be monitored carefully due to its link with the increase in compounds
responsible for boar taint and in particular androstenone. Surgical castration of
pigs is likely to be banned, by the EC in the near future (possibly 2015), for
animal welfare reasons and should not be considered as a long term remedy for
boar taint. It would seem prudent for processors to allow the slaughter of gilts
up to heavy weights but set strict upper weight limits on entire male pig
carcasses.
A study by Mullane (2004) who compared slaughter weights from 80 to 120kg
liveweight showed that the concentration of androstenone in backfat from boars
increased by 70 % when live weight at slaughter increased from 80kg to 100kg
and by 87% from 80kg to 120kg.
Meat plants need to remind suppliers regularly, in writing, of the weight ranges
and conditions of payment applied. They should also provide suppliers with
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 48 30/01/2012
quarterly summary of pigs supplied detailing kill-out, weight distribution, lean
content and condemnations. The PIGIS system of carcass weight analysis used
in Northern Ireland (Hawe and Donnelly, 2007) would appear to be ideally suited
to this task.
12.3. Kill out percentage
Pigs are selected for sale based on liveweight and likely carcass weight. Kill out
percentage or carcass yield is important in this planning. There is no standard
procedure for obtaining live weight of pigs prior to marketing and so allowing
calculation and comparison of kill out. Weighing may be done on the farm, en
route or at the factory intake. Results are confused by variation in fasting time
and feeding method as well as weighing procedure. Factory returns should show
live weight of the truck load on arrival as well as carcass weight. This would
focus attention on fasting (with benefits to meat colour) as well as
condemnations.
12.4. Alternative grading/evaluation systems
There is a need for ongoing monitoring on developments in carcass
grading/assessment internationally. At the very least the prediction equations
should be re-validated but ideally new and more accurate grading systems should
also be considered e.g. CT scanner and more sophisticated probes. The present
prediction formulae are based on dissections carried out about ten years ago
when slaughter weights were lower and genetics were different. The use of the
CT scanner as a reference method would reduce the number of total carcass
dissections to be carried out and greatly reduce the cost of periodic calibration
of the grading probes.
12.5. VAT refund
Most pig producers are not registered for VAT and to compensate for VAT paid
on inputs these producers receive a flat rate refund added to the pig price.
This is currently set at 5.2%.
12.6. Statutory and non-statutory deductions
The deductions described in Table 12.3 are made from the sale price. Both
voluntary levies (IFA and research) yield much less than the theoretical amount
due to deficiencies in the collecting mechanism and some producers choosing to
opt out of payment. In addition, smaller plants deduct only the statutory levies
and levies are not collected from live exports to Northern Ireland.
Compared with other countries the contribution of Irish pig producers toward
marketing, producer representation and technology transfer is insignificant as
shown in Table 12.4.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 49 30/01/2012
Table 12.3. Statutory (compulsory) and voluntary deductions from payments
Description of
charge
Type of levy € per pig Reason
Bord Bia Compulsory €0.25 Marketing and promotion
Veterinary Compulsory €1.30 Food safety
Irish Farmers
Association (IFA)
Voluntary c. €0.15* Producer representation
Research Voluntary €0.08 Research and
Development
* IFA Levy – 0.15% of Gross value including VAT minus transport allowance
Table 12.4. Statutory and voluntary deductions/levies/payments in selected EU
countries (cent/pig) 2005
Charge AUS BEL DK FRA GER GB IT NET SWE
Office and professional
fees
16 40 57 42
Research 15 29
Marketing 73 175 74 1 51 95 146 94
Animal health 19 30
Meat inspection /
carcass classification
40 45 30 105 42
Total 113 191 114 80 111 286 83 146 94
Source: INTERPIG
13.Pig meat quality issues other than leannessLeanness is the only meat quality attribute that is paid for by the processor and
for this reason there is very little incentive for the producer to adopt
technologies or practices that improve the eating quality.
13.1. Appearance
The appearance of meat products is very important in the purchase decision of
consumers. Consumers expect meat products to have attractive colour and a
desirable fat to lean ratio. However, when cooked the appearance of meat
appears to be less important than tenderness, juiciness and flavour/aroma.
Pale soft and exudative (PSE) is a condition which in pork will negatively affect
the colour and appearance of raw pork. The pale and/or uneven colour of the
meat and presence of exudates on display trays is not appealing to consumers.
Genotype was in the past the main cause of PSE but selection has almost
eliminated the trait from breeding stock. The condition now arises mainly due to
poor (stressful) pre-slaughter handling practices on the farm, during transit and
at the slaughter plant (especially immediately pre-stunning). Post-slaughter
practices can also contribute to the development of this condition in carcass
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 50 30/01/2012
muscle. This can particularly be the case where chilling of carcasses to c.40C is
delayed.
O’Neill et al. (2003) found a higher incidence of PSE in one pigmeat plant in
December-January, among pigs from particular suppliers and among pigs
slaughtered on Fridays and attributed this to inadequate resting pre-slaughter.
Colour of pork is an important consideration in the purchasing choice of a
customer. Irish consumers typically prefer pork of a pale colour while
consumers elsewhere e.g. Japan prefer pork of a redder colour.
13.2. Eating quality
There are frequent claims from the popular media and from controlled studies
that pork eating quality has deteriorated as genetic selection has reduced
carcass fat levels and leaner breeds are used. E.g. a recent article in USA To-
day highlighted the use of fatter breeds in celebrity restaurants (Wuskowitz,
2007).
Juiciness
This is an important component of the eating quality and is determined by the
amount of moisture present in the cooked muscle. PSE pork will be drier than
normal pork. Apart from this, the cooking process has a major impact on the
juiciness of pork. “Well-done” pork will be less juicy than less well done pork.
Increasing the internal temperature from 60 0C to 80 0C results in reduced
juiciness and moisture content in cooked pork.
Tenderness
Tenderness is the most important factor in consumer acceptance of meat. To
maximise tenderness, cold shortening must be avoided, a high level of
intramuscular fat should be present and the level of connective tissue must be
minimised.
Flavour/Aroma
Flavour and aroma are the result of a large number of compounds but it is
difficult to identify all of the constituents that contribute to these sensations.
Off-flavours are potentially a larger problem associated with pork palatability
than the intensity or desirability of the flavour of normal pork.
Boar taint is an unpleasant odour that is released during the cooking of pig meat
from entire male pigs. However, only a proportion of boars produce this odour
and not all consumers are sensitive to it. Nevertheless it is a potential problem
for the industry, since one bad experience could put a person/family off pork
for life (see section 12.2).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 51 30/01/2012
Improving eating quality
Pork of higher intramuscular fat content has better taste and eating quality.
Genotype is an important influence e.g. use of Duroc sires. Feeding high density
feed and rapid pre-slaughter growth rate are also important. Fatter pigs tend
have poorer feed conversion efficiency and the producer will not be rewarded
for producing pork of superior eating quality.
There are a number of processes which if applied at factory level could
potentially improve eating quality but these have not been adopted so far by the
industry:
Electrical stimulation to accelerate rigor development
Aitchbone hanging to improve tenderness
Carcass aging – The improvements in tenderness due to aging are rapid in
the first 1-2 days, then continue at a slower pace and plateau at around 6
days post-slaughter.
Enhancement of pork quality through injection of pork with brine solution
or for example a 5% polyphosphate solution.
Monitoring of muscle pH
There is an urgent need for feedback from consumers on their experience with
the eating quality of Irish pigmeat. The increase in weight, use of heavier boar
pigs etc may have changed eating quality as perceived by the consumer. There is
also need to benchmark the eating quality of Irish pigmeat against that of
imported pigmeat which has a significant share of the market.
14. Breeding and Genetics
Traditionally Ireland’s pig genetic base consisted of numerous small, family
operated independent breeders. These breeders selected their best animals by
visual conformation and individual performance and entered them in livestock
shows.
For about 30 years (1960 to 1990) a government breeding programme based on
within-herd recording and performance testing of boars in two test stations
resulted in rapid improvement in carcass leanness in Landrace and Large White
breeds. This was supplemented by importations of superior stock of these two
breeds
The best animals from the test programme were sold to commercial producers
thereby disseminating the gene pool and improving the national genetic base.
This system has completely changed over the last 20 years due to health
concerns regarding centralised testing, elimination of the traditional small
breeders and the large scale use of AI on commercial units.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 52 30/01/2012
A comparison of seven sources of semen from terminal sire lines available in
Ireland in 1997 revealed significant differences in growth rate, feed conversion
efficiency and carcass traits (Lynch et al, 1998). In view of the significantly
lower growth rates recorded on Irish pig herds the industry should consider a
repeat of the previous study using imported frozen semen from e.g. Denmark,
France and Netherlands to benchmark the current Irish gene pool.
There are now two genetic companies who share the majority part of the Irish
market (~90%) with the remaining market share been split among a number
(about three) of smaller companies. These companies use their own nucleus
herds and BLUP breeding technology to select for the desired traits. While
both import stock from a number of other countries, the narrow genetic base in
the Irish pig population is a concern.
14.1. Current national herd performance
The current genetic performance of the Irish herd can be evaluated on (1)
number of pigs born alive per litter, (2) average daily gain (ADG) and (3) feed
conversion efficiency (FCE). The average ADG and FCE for the Irish herd is
598g/d and 2.46 from weaning to slaughter (Pigsys, 2005).
For a period in the 1980s/1990s, the Irish herd was the best in Europe (and
indeed in the world) based on number born alive and sow output per year. The
country’s temperate climate, skilled work force, substantial investment in
facilities and high health status in conjunction with a good genetic base all
contributed to this high prolificacy. In recent years the national ranking in
comparison to other countries has slipped. Denmark and France have both seen
huge increases in number of pigs weaned per litter between 1996 and 2006
(Roguet, 2007).
Table 14.1 below shows the number born alive per litter of the Irish herd in
comparison to some other European countries. Despite higher pre-weaning
mortality in those countries with a higher litter size there is a trend towards
high numbers weaned especially in Denmark and France.
Table 14.1. Number of Pigs born alive per litter, pre-weaning mortality and no.
weaned in selected European countries (Interpig 2004)
Ireland Denmark France Sweden N’lands
No. born alive 11.2 12.7 12.5 12.1 11.9
Mortality % 9.3 13.1 14.4 14.7 12.3
No. weaned 10.2 11.0 10.7 10.3 10.4
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 53 30/01/2012
14.2. Artificial Insemination
The majority of pig units now use close to 100% AI. The number of units
undertaking on-farm collection of semen has diminished in recent years primarily
due to variable fertility, ease of commercial AI deliveries and use of long life
semen extenders by AI studs. AI now plays an increasingly important role in
genetic improvement due to the majority of Irish units using the criss-cross
breeding program resulting in AI being the only source of external genetic input.
14.3. Breeding Programs on commercial farms
Traditionally a significant percentage of Irish units would have purchased small
numbers of gilts on a monthly basis or when required. While this system is still
common it is becoming less popular due to the increasing cost of gilt delivery,
disease concerns and the lower cost of producing home reared gilts.
The majority of Irish units use the Criss-Cross breeding program to obtain
their sow replacements. This system is simple, cheap and eliminates the disease
risk of bringing in animals. However, a proportion of hybrid vigour is lost thereby
limiting the rate of genetic advancement which results in a failure to maximize
the genetic potential of the herd. This loss of hybrid vigour may be a
contributing factor to the reduced rate of progress e.g. in litter size when
compared to other countries.
The other main breeding system is the installation of an on-farm purebred
nucleus to produce on-farm replacements. This system has not been widely used
in Ireland to date. It requires a nucleus of purebred lines to be purchased and
these are then bred to produce the F1 gilts required for herd replacement. This
system has a high initial start-up cost and requires very good management. The
benefits are that increased uniformity is achieved in the slaughter generation
and maximum hybrid vigour is achieved in the replacement gilts while the herd
can still remain closed to incoming stock.
14.4. Breeds and crosses of choice
The breeds or strains that are being used can be broken down into Damlines and
Sirelines.
Damline: The Landrace x Large White (F1) is the most common genetic cross for
replacement gilts. There has recently been an increased inclusion of damline
Duroc as part of a three way cross (50% LW, 25% DR, 25% LR), This is claimed
to produce a gilt/sow which is more robust for the loose sow systems thereby
reducing the cull rate of young sows arising from injuries.
Sireline: The Irish industry has focused on producing a slaughter pig with a high
LM %. The sires used to produce this slaughter generation are either a pure
Large White or a Large White/Pietrain cross. With the introduction of the
PMWS disease into this country in the last few years the industry quickly began
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 54 30/01/2012
using a 50% or pure Pietrain sire as an aid to combating the disease and a
significant proportion of the industry is now using a Pietrain based sire to
produce the slaughter generation. This is producing a pig which is still very lean
but may not be growing as fast as the Large White or a Large White/Pietrain
cross which is something that the industry will have to give increased attention.
With the introduction of commercial vaccines for PMWS there is now less need
for reliance on the use of Pietrain in terminal sires
14.5. Future Direction of on-farm breeding programmes
The genetic input into the pig industry is a critical component for future
success. The aim for the future should be to increase unit throughput by an
increased number born alive and better growth rates. The industry has a good
genetic supply but this may not be utilised properly at farm level thereby failing
to maximize the genetic potential. The current Criss-cross system needs to be
reviewed in favour of a closed herd nucleus program which would allow a more
precise means of producing replacement stock, maximizing hybrid vigour while
minimizing any biosecurity risk of incoming stock. Linkage with a BLUP system in
large herds would further increase the rate of genetic improvement while
minimising the risk of disease transmission via breeding stock. Recently this
service (used for some years in the US and Netherlands) has also become
available to Irish breeders.
The focus of sirelines needs to be re-examined. The traditional approach of
producing a lean animal has reduced the emphasis on growth rates. The industry
appears to be satisfied with the current level of leanness and therefore the
priority should now be to produce an animal with an increased appetite and
growth rate without depressing carcass lean meat percentage or FCE.
15. Trends in production efficiency and profitabilityPig production was, in the past, notorious for the cyclical nature of production,
prices and profitability with periods of high profits being followed by expansion
in production, market oversupply and low prices. Specialisation and large unit
size has made production less responsive to sudden changes in profitability but
has meant that period of low profitability longer. E.g. the low prices in the
1998/1999 period has left a legacy of low investment in production facilities and
many unit today are in need of substantial refurbishment and upgrading. A
proposal at EU level for the establishment of a Regulatory Fund to cope with
cyclical nature of international markets (Agri Food 2010, 2000) does not seem
to have progressed.
15.1. Pattern of nominal producer prices, feed prices and margins
The producer price for pigmeat (in nominal terms) has fallen over the past 15
years but feed prices have also fallen (Table 15.1). Margin over feed has
fluctuated widely from year to year. While this variation is outside the control
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 55 30/01/2012
of the industry it does not inspire confidence and makes financial forecasting
and planning very difficult. The present year has seen feed prices rise by over
30% leaving most producers in a loss making position in late 2007.
Table 15.1 Pig and Feed Prices and Margin over Feed Cost per kg Dead Weight.
1991-2006
PERIOD 1992-1996
1997-2001
2002-2006
FEED PRICES (€ per tonne)
Creep Pellets 678 719 797
Link Pellets 451 456 493
Weaner Pellets 280 259 258
Dry Sow Meal 211 186 187
Lactating Sow Meal 220 200 204
Finisher Meal 217 195 199
Composite Meal 235 215 217
Feed Cost per kg Dead Weight c 92 82 83
PIG PRICES ( c per kg dead)
Finisher 142 127 135
MARGIN OVER FEED (c per kg dead) 50 46 57
For individual years see Appendix Table 3.
There is need for a market and policy analysis and strategic forecasting service
including international benchmarking of productivity and production costs that
would help producers make better informed business decisions.
16. International benchmarking of the Irish pig industryA high level of technical efficiency will, not alone, help to minimize production
costs per kg of carcass but will also maximize profits by optimizing the amount
of pig meat produced per sow per year. The survival and profitability of the pig
production sector in Ireland is very much dependent on how cost competitive it
is in comparison to other countries and in particular to major EU pig meat
exporting countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. In the longer term,
any freeing up of world trade involving pig meat will mean that Irish producers
will have to compete with low cost producers such as Brazil.
Information is available on how technical efficiency in Ireland compares with
that in certain other EU countries. Ireland is one of 10 countries which now
participate in an annual comparison of production costs titled InterPig.
The results for 2005 are used for the purpose of this analysis (Table 16.1).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 56 30/01/2012
Table 16.1. Key technical efficiency parameters in selected European countries –
2005
Country No. Pigs
per Sow
per Year
Average Live
Weight at sale
kg
Weaning to
Slaughter
ADG g FCE
Sample size
Sows
Austria 20.1 118.0 640 2.65 150 herds
50-100 sows Integ
70-200 sows br
400-1000 finishers
Belgium 20.9 114.6 540 2.64
Denmark 24.3 105.0 692 2.53 550 farms Ave 500 sows
France 22.5 114.6 670 2.69 40% of herd for production
500 herds costings
Germany 20.0 119.0 638 2.73 C 1000 herds
ave 130 sows 750 finishers
Great Britain 19.4 96.9 589 2.40 200 herds c 205 sows
Ireland 21.9 98.6 609 2.45 c50,000 sows
Italy 19.7 163 571 4.20 35000 sows
Netherlands 23.4 113.8 633 2.48 155 sows and 10% finishers
Ave 266 sows 1100
finishers
Sweden 22.0 114.8 716 2.60 10-15% sows 20-30000
Source: InterPig 2006
The data used in this comparison is obtained from recording systems in the
participating countries and this data has been analysed using an agreed standard
format. The accuracy of the comparison depends on how representative the data
is from the participating countries. The data for Ireland represents about 30%
of the national herd and compares well with the sample size in other countries in
the study
It is likely that herds which participate in herd recording and benchmarking
systems are more efficient than the average of all herds in each country. Good
record keeping is associated with a high level of technical efficiency.
The low growth rate in Belgium is likely to be due to the widespread use of
Pietrain stock. This should be of concern in Ireland where Pietrain sires came
into favour because of perceived resistance to Post weaning Multi systemic
Wasting Syndrome (PMWS).
16.1. Sow ProductivityThe number of pigs produced per sow per year places Ireland (21.9) behind
Denmark (24.3), the Netherlands (23.4) and France (22.5) and similar to Sweden
(22.0). Two of the key components of sow productivity are:
Farrowing Index.: The Number of Litters Produced per Sow per Year
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 57 30/01/2012
Number of Pigs Born Alive per Litter
In Table 16.2 the countries are ranked based on the number of pigs born alive
per sow per year.
Table 16.2. Farrowing Index, No. Born Alive per Litter and No. Born Alive per Sow
per Year in selected European Countries 2005
Country Litters per Sow
per Year
No. Born Alive
per Litter
No. Born Alive
per Sow per Year
Denmark 2.27 13.22 30.0
France 2.24 12.6 28.2
Netherlands 2.33 12.0 28.0
Sweden 2.22 12.1 26.9
Ireland 2.28 11.19 25.5
Germany 2.26 11.1 25.1
Austria 2.24 10.9 24.4
Belgium 2.28 10.72 24.4
Great Britain 2.22 10.87 24.1
Italy 2.17 10.6 23.0
Source: InterPig 2006
The differences between countries in number born alive per sow per year are
substantially less than the differences in number born alive per litter. The
farrowing index for Ireland (2.28) is second only to the Netherlands (2.33) but
no. born alive per litter falls far short of Denmark (13.22), France (12.6),
Sweden (12.1) and the Netherlands (12.0).
There is an increase in piglet losses associated with an increase in litter size.
Nevertheless, the main factor limiting sow productivity in Ireland is the
relatively low number born alive per litter.
Number born alive per litter has increased in Ireland over the last decade but
not to the same extent as some other countries (Table 16.3). Even the top 25%
in Ireland have not matched the average improvements in Denmark and France.
Table 16.3: Changes in Number Born Alive per Litter in selected countries (1995
/2005)
Country Source 1995 2005 Change
Ireland PigSys 10.8 11.19 +0.39
Ireland Top 25% PigSys 11.36 11.66 +0.30
Denmark NCPP 11.08 13.22 +2.13
France IFIP 11.00 12.9 +1.29
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 58 30/01/2012
In the Netherlands number born alive per litter has increased from 11.1 in 1998
to 12.0 in 2005 – an increase of about 0.15 pigs per year.
Factors to be considered in identifying reasons for low Born Alive per Litter on
Irish pig units include:
Prolificacy of the breeding stock available
Effectiveness and implementation of breeding programmes on commercial
units
Sow feeding and, in particular, lactation feeding
Gilt integration and management
Loss of skilled operatives especially to the construction industry
16.2. Slaughter WeightsIn most of the European countries involved in InterPig pigs are slaughtered at
about 115kg live. However, in Ireland (and also in Great Britain) slaughter
weights are, on average, less than 100kg live. In both countries male pigs are
reared as entire males whereas in all other countries castration is standard
practice. Concerns about the possible development of boar taint in entire males
taken to heavier weights have been a deterrent to the adoption of higher
average slaughter weights in Ireland. Nevertheless, there has been a significant
increase in slaughter weights in Ireland in the last decade (Table 16.4).
Table 16.4: Average slaughter weights in Ireland 1995-2006
Year Average Slaughter Weight kg (dead)
1995 65.5
1996 66.2
1997 67.5
1998 67.7
1999 68.4
2000 68.1
2001 69.6
2002 70.8
2003 71.3
2004 73.0
2005 75.0
2006 74.0
Source: PigSys Report 2005
Pig slaughter weights have been increase by 9.5 kg in the course of 10 years.
This increase has occurred in response to changes in the market requirements
for pig meat. The potential for further increase in weights is likely to be limited
with entire males and castration is unlikely to be a viable alternative considering
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 59 30/01/2012
the negative impact on production efficiency and the associated pig welfare
considerations.
The legal floor-space requirement for growing pigs increases from 0.65m2 in the
interval 65 to 110kg to 1.0m2 above 110kg which corresponds to a carcass weight
of c. 84kg. Two-stage finishing housing will be required to stay in compliance at
very heavy weights.
16.3. Growth RatesThe average growth rate figures from weaning to slaughter for the different
countries are not readily comparable due to the differences in slaughter weight.
To achieve a modest 650 g per day from weaning to 115 kg finisher pigs on Irish
units would have to grow at 1040 g per day from 98.6 to 115 kg. Even at 650 g
per day adjusted to 115 kg sale weight growth rates would be well below those
reported for Sweden (716), Denmark (692) or France (690).
Growth rates on Irish units are low not just because of the low slaughter
weights. A key component of high growth rates is a high daily feed intake. Feed
restriction will reduce growth rates. While deliberate feed restriction is
unlikely there are numerous factors that may result in reduced feed intakes.
These include:
Genetics
Feeder/trough design
Overcrowding
High environmental temperatures
High water to meal ratios
Disease
Feed palatability
16.4. Feed Conversion Efficiency
Again the comparison is complicated by the differences in slaughter weight.
When allowances are made for these differences the efficiency of feed
utilization in Irish pig herds is broadly similar to that recorded in the other
countries except for Italy for which the data relates to Parma ham production
based on very high slaughter weights.
A preliminary examination of the energy specification of the diets used in the
different countries suggests that the average Metabolisable Energy content of
diets fed in Ireland (13.36) is higher than in other countries except Denmark
(13.97) and the Netherlands (13.64) (Table 16.5).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 60 30/01/2012
Table 16.5. Efficiency of feed utilization in selected European countries
Country FCE Weaning to
Sale
Average ME
content of diets
MJ per kg
MJ ME per kg
Liveweight Gain
Austria 2.65 12.26 32.5
Belgium 2.64 n.a. n.a.
Denmark 2.53 13.97 35.3
France 2.69 12.86 34.6
Germany 2.73 13.07 35.7
Great Britain 2.40 13.11 31.5
Ireland 2.45 13.36 32.7
Italy 4.20 12.73 53.5
Netherlands 2.48 13.64 33.8
Sweden 2.60 12.65 32.9
Source: InterPig 2006
The efficiency of feed utilization in Ireland and Britain should be significantly
better than other countries due not alone to the lower slaughter weights but
also to the use of entire male pigs rather than castrates.
16.5. Production Costs
Feed is the single largest cost item in pig production and in Ireland feed
represents about 65% of total production costs.
Feed Cost per Kg Dead
The average composite price of purchased feed on Irish pig farms in 2006 was
€214 per tonne. (Table 16.6; Teagasc Pig Development Unit: National Monitoring
of Prices and Margins in Pig Production). The latest composite feed price
(November 2007) is €289 per tonne.
Table 16.6: Average feed price per tonne for purchased feed on Irish pig farms -
2006
Diet Quantity Fed
per Pig kg
Average Price
per Tonne €
Feed Cost per
Pig €
Dry Sow meal 35.9 183 6.57
Lactating Sow meal 19.3 205 3.96
Creep pellets 4.2 798 3.19
Link pellets 7.2 496 3.57
Weaner pellets 34.1 253 8.63
Finisher meal 179.7 190 34.14
Total 280.8 60.06
Average Composite 214
Source: PigSys
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 61 30/01/2012
The data on feed usage is from Pigsys for 2005 when the average weight at sale
was 75 kg dead at 75.7% kill out or a live weight of 98 kg. The feed cost per kg
dead weight was 83.0c in 2006. At current feed prices the feed cost per kg
dead weight is about 110.5c/kg.
16.6. International Feed Cost ComparisonThe ongoing InterPig project provides a comparison of production costs,
including feed costs, in the participant countries (Table 16.7).
Table 16.7. Feed Prices and Feed Cost per kg Dead Weight in selected European
countries (2005).
Country Average Feed price per
tonne €
Feed Cost per kg Dead
Weight c
Netherlands 166.67 59.1
Sweden 152.77 59.6
Germany 157.17 62.2
France 165.41 65.5
Denmark 173.55 66.0
Belgium 181.52 66.7
Austria 178.28 66.8
Great Britain 185..62 71.5
Ireland 213.87 79.9
Italy 203.92 117.7
Average (Excl. Italy) 175 66.4
Source: InterPig 2006
For most of the participant countries (seven out of ten) the feed cost per kg
dead weight was less than 67c. Excluding Italy, for which the data refer to the
special Parma ham production. The feed cost per kg is highest in Ireland and is
more than 11c per higher than for most countries. The Irish cost (79.9c) is
significantly higher than Great Britain (71.5c).
Most of these differences relate to the differences in the average feed price
per tonne (Table 16.8). Pig feed prices in Ireland for all compound diets are
considerably higher than in other countries. For a discussion on feed prices in
Ireland see section 19.
The average feed price per tonne in France in 2005 was €165.41. In September
2006 two different feed suppliers quoted prices that gave a composite price of
about €160 per tonne (Table 16.9). In this exercise the total feed from weaning
to slaughter (7-115 kg) amounts to 274 kg or a feed efficiency of 2.54. This is
significantly better than the 2.69 reported in InterPig 2005.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 62 30/01/2012
Table 16.8: Average price for different feeds in selected European countries
Diet Sow Rearer Finisher
Average € 170.41 266.85 164.56
Lowest € 153.94 241.13 142.87
Highest € 189.00 326.23 187.50
Ireland € 187.00 326.23 187.00
Ireland vs
Average +16.59 +59.38 +22.44
Source: Interpig 2006.
Table 16.9: Pig feed prices in France September 2006
Diet Feed per pig, kg Coop de Bruins Cooperyl
Hunaudaye
First stage 5 309.04 499.50
Second stage 31 196.80 200.50
Grower 95 151.30 150.50
Finisher 143 145.30 143.50
Gestation 33 154.50 151.50
Lactation 21 174.00 166.50
Total 328
Composite 158.92 160.99
Total feed from weaning to slaughter (7-115 kg) in this exercise amounts to 274
kg or a feed efficiency of 2.54. This is significantly better than the 2.69
reported in InterPig 2005.
These feed price differences are due in part to differences in the quantity and
proportions of the different diets fed.
Weaner Feeding: In Ireland considerably higher quantities of expensive diets
are fed (Table 16.10). As an example pigs remain on relatively expensive weaner
feed to a heavier weight when a finisher diet might be expected to support
similar growth rate and FCE.
Table 16.10. Weaner feed costs in Ireland and France compared
Ireland France
Feed per weaner, kg 53.9 44
Average feed price per tonne, €1 329 247
Weaner transfer weight, kg 36.3 32.1
Weaning weight, kg 6.6 7.5
Weaner FCE 1.81 1.79
Feed cost per Weaner, € 17.73 10.871 Weighted average of starter, link and weaner feed
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 63 30/01/2012
1 The usage of Creep/Link or First Stage diets in France is
considerably lower at 6.8kg per pig than in Ireland (11.3kg per pig) as
is the weighted average price of creep/link (€560 v €593/tonne)
2 Pigs in Ireland are fed weaner diets until 36.3 kg, on average which is
4.2 kg heavier than in France
3 There are considerable differences in the cost of the diets fed
between the two countries. . Nevertheless FCE from weaning to
transfer is similar in the two countries.
Finisher Feeding: Pig slaughter weights in France and other countries (except
Britain) are higher than in Ireland. Consequently, finisher feed is a smaller
proportion of the feed used from weaning in Ireland. Finisher feed is
significantly less expensive than the diets fed to weaners. In France as in other
countries the use of two diets from about 30kg until slaughter enables overall
cost to be reduced as the second finisher diet is about €6 per tonne less
expensive than the first (Table 16.9).
Aside from the differences in the quantity and proportion of the different
diets fed Irish prices for particular feeds are considerably higher than those in
other countries (Table 15.8).
Application of French proportions of the several diets to Irish pigs combined
with the French slaughter weight and a lower cost second stage finisher would
result in a composite feed price of about €195, significantly lower than the €214
recorded by PIGSYS (Table 16.7)
Common costs of production
These are costs of production that are incurred on the vast majority if not all
units. Included are:
Labour and management
Healthcare
Heat/power/light
Repairs
Transport
Stock depreciation
Manure handling and environmental compliance
Insurance
AI
Office and phone
Miscellaneous
Ireland compares very favourably with the other participant countries in the
Interpig project (Table 16.11).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 64 30/01/2012
Table 16.11. Total costs and Common non-feed costs of production for pigmeat in
selected EU countries
Country Total Cost per
kg dead c
Of which
Common Costs per
kg dead c
Of which
Labour Cost
per kg dead c
Ireland 137.4 34.2 12.9
Belgium 125.3 34.3 14.5
Italy 185.8 39.0 17.2
France 132.3 40.5 17.7
Denmark 133.9 40.7 13.6
Netherlands 125.3 42.0 15.4
Sweden 140.9 43.9 21.6
Germany 144.9 50.2 18.6
Britain 152.6 56.4 17.9
Austria 151.0 57.7 20.7
Source: InterPig 2005
Labour is by far the most important of the Common Costs. The larger unit size in
Ireland produces efficiencies which help to reduce labour costs.
Major differences between countries arise in the expenditure on Repairs and
contribute to the variation in Common Costs.
Herd-specific costs of production
These are mainly due to:
Building depreciation
Interest
17. Government policy initiativesGovernment initiatives can influence the competitiveness of an industry by
facilitation of change, development of infrastructure, grant-aid, technical
support, tax concessions and positively or negatively by regulation.
17.1. Rationalisation of processing
An initiative by the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) in the mid-1980s
resulted in upgrading of a small number of pigmeat plants and the closure of
some others. This modernisation resulted in improved product quality and more
efficient processing contributing to the increase in the national pig output in the
following years. Further rationalisation of pigmeat processing was envisaged by
a Department of Agriculture policy think tanks (Agri Vision 2010, 2000; Agri
Vision 2015, 2004). However the past ten years have seen a number of smaller
slaughter plants compete successfully with the plants upgraded in the 1980s.
These smaller plants now account for about 32% of the weekly kill.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 65 30/01/2012
17.2. Taxation policy
The application of manufacturing tax rates to the production of animal feed on
the farm was a major driver of the adoption of computerised wet feed systems
in the industry with a view to home compounding of feed.
17.3. Business Expansion Scheme (BES)
Many pig producers availed of BES funding which allowed investors in particular
approved projects (including PAYE taxpayers) to reduce their tax payments.
Feed manufacture was one such activity, which benefited from this scheme.
Construction of buildings was another.
18. Financing pig production18.1. Structured lending
The current capital investment per sow integrated in buildings and site
development can be almost €4,500 (Table 18.1). If borrowed over 10 years at
7% the annual repayments are about €625 per sow or €28 per pig produced (or
38 cent/kg deadweight). Obviously it is not possible to finance a new
development totally from borrowings. This makes it impossible for new entrants
to pig production to build new units without independent financial resources.
Consequently, the vast bulk of expansion, if any, will come from existing units
where the additional repayments can also be spread over the original sow herd.
Table 18.1. Breakdown of building cost for a pig unit on a Greenfield site (per
100 sows based on c. 400 sow unit).
Category No places Cost per place, € Total cost, €
Pregnant sow 82.5 850 70,125
Farrowing 22.5 3,000 67,500
Gilts 12 450 5,400
Boar 2 1,000 2,000
Weaner stage 1 185 200 37,000
Weaner stage 2 230 180 41,400
Finisher 550 300 165,000
Site development
and services
50,000
Total 438,425
Such investment will only occur if the producer is confident that the investment
will yield a satisfactory rate of return relative to other opportunities inside or
outside the farm gate. The low rate of return will inhibit any movement of pig
units from grassland to tillage areas.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 66 30/01/2012
In addition to the capital investment in buildings and equipment provision must
be made for working capital. This will be of the order of €500 per sow at
current feed prices and will depend on the amount of feed credit availed of.
Even where expansion is not proposed, existing units will require financial
investment for repairs and maintenance. Some fittings and fixtures require
upgrading or modernising every 10 years or so. These usually include some
steelwork, troughs, feeders, slats, insulation, ventilation equipment, feeding
systems, pen divisions, heating system etc.
In Canada there has been significant investment in new pig units (breeding and
contract finishing) on or next to tillage farms. The pig manure is used to
fertilise the land for growing grain which in turn is used to feed the pigs.
A contract finishing unit for 2,000 finishing pigs (upper limit of unit size without
a license) would cost about €625,000 to build (including €25,000 for site
development and services). Repayments on a 10 year loan at 7% interest would
be €43 per pig place, €11 per pig sold or 14 per kg carcass sold.
Finance costs may be reduced by:-
Negotiating loan terms and interest rates with the lender and shopping
around for the best rates.
Extending the loan repayment period from the traditional 10 year term to
15-20 years. This may be an option for young producers seeking to get
established. It may be more acceptable to the financial institution to put
the building structure on a 15 to 20 year term while leaving the finance
for fittings and fixtures on a 7 to 10 year loan. In some cases this could
result in a 25% reduction in the annual payment compared with the normal
financial arrangements.
18.2. Attitude of the main banks to investment in pig production
Banks in general are positive about pig production. Current concerns with
regards to pig production include the impact of the nitrates regulations on farm
profits. A concern with regards to lending money for new development is the
cost and time scale for obtaining planning permission.
While banks are aware of the high cost of new developments they tend to focus
more on the sale value of a unit, i.e. what value would a unit sell for if it were put
on the market. Many pig units have a low re-sale vale due to being located close
to the family residence or to other farm enterprises.
Key considerations when financing pig production include:
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 67 30/01/2012
Security – many units are on small sites. Having sufficient land/assets as
a security against a loan is important. Otherwise the borrower will need
sufficient own resources to invest in a proposed development.
Track Record – the track record of an individual is very important, i.e.
their historical ability to repay a loan.
The “individual” borrower is important, as is his training, qualifications,
etc.
Performance Records – good accurate records for a unit always help a
bank to make a decision on whether to finance a loan. These records can
also be used in preparing Cashflow projections (for the bank) for a given
project.
18.3. Overdraft and cash flow
Excessive reliance on overdraft funding is expensive. It may be an indication of
poor overall financial control of the enterprise.
18.4. Feed compounder credit
There is an unhealthy reliance by many producers on long lines of credit from
feed manufacturers. This benefits neither side. For the compounder there is
the risk of a bad debt and the cost of account administration charges. For the
pig producers his scope to negotiate better terms or switch suppliers is greatly
reduced. Consequently he may be paying a higher feed price and/or be receiving
a feed of lower specification. Since it is assumed that credit charges will not be
paid if shown on the invoice, feed manufacturers tend to include the likely
credit cost in the quoted feed price. A bad debt must inevitably be paid by the
merchant’s other customers.
Compounder credit should be used sparingly to allow maximum flexibility in feed
purchase.
Feed manufacturers should work closely with producers and their advisers to
greatly reduce the amount of indebtedness and ensure the long-term viability of
the enterprise. Payment by direct debit should be encourage by transferring
part of the savings to the customer in a lower feed price.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 68 30/01/2012
19. Staff supply and training19.1. Sources of staff for the pig industry
Skilled staff who are motivated to deliver a high level of technical performance
are essential in pig production. Large, specialised units with skilled, well-trained
staff were the drivers of the world class productivity in the industry in the
past. The supply of staff from the Athenry Pig course was the foundation on
which this productivity was achieved.
The availability of better paid employment outside of agriculture and especially
for semiskilled labour in construction has resulted in a mass exodus of Irish
workers from the pig industry. There is now a high percentage of East European
workers in the industry. While many such workers are excellent, lack of
experience with pigs and a poor command of English are major problems. The
rate of pay for many such workers is low (often little more than the legal
minimum wage) resulting in a high turnover rate and resulting low skill levels.
Housing provided for or available to for immigrant workers is often less than
ideal which contributes to their speedy exit from the industry.
19.2. Formal college based training
There is no formal training in pig production/husbandry at the present time in
either Teagasc or private colleges. Neither is there an option to take a pig
production module with the present set of courses. Evidence from Clonakilty
college in recent years suggests that a well-organised course taught by a
knowledgable teacher would attract students.
19.3. University training
The teaching of a highly acclaimed pig production module at the Faculty of
Agriculture in University College Dublin and active post-graduate training
programmes in UCD and Teagasc has ensured a steady supply of nutritionists to
service the pig industry and the feed industry in general. However, interest in
pig production among unde- and post-graduates appears to be in decline at
present.
19.4. Work based training
Teagasc staff have been delivering one-day and half-day training workshops for
operatives and supervisory staff. The response has been good and there is a
need to develop the concept further to provide accreditation in the form of a
formal, internationally recognised qualification for attendees who complete a
planned programme.
19.4.1. Operatives
A high proportion of new operatives entering the pig industry are now sourced
from the new members states of the EU and other Eastern European countries.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 69 30/01/2012
Many workers from the member states tend to move on to better paid
employment once they have established themselves in Ireland while those from
non-EU states are usually on work-permits and as a result are less mobile. The
latter category has declined in recent years
There is an urgent need to deliver training to these operatives if their skill
levels and productivity are to be improved. Pig producers can afford to pay
skilled staff at a higher rate and provide better living conditions which should
reduce staff turnover.
While it is desirable that operatives whose competency in English is poor receive
basic training in their native language it would be unrealistic to do so in all cases.
More advanced pig production courses can only be delivered in English as a good
working knowledge of English is necessary if workers are to assume positions of
responsibility.
19.4.2. Managers
The Certificate in Pig Husbandry – a two year course taught from the Athenry
college provided a supply of managers and skilled stock persons to the industry
from 1969 to 2003. Numbers in the first year of the course peaked at 32. The
final intake of 6 was in (2000) and of these 4 graduated in 2003. At the
present time there is no college based training programme for pig producers,
operatives or managers.
A greater range of training options outside agriculture and the fall from favour
of narrow agriculture-only courses in general contributed to the demise of the
course. In future managers and supervisors will probably have a formal third
level qualification or be recruited from among foreign born workers who have
started as stockpersons or operatives.
There will be a need for formal training for supervisory staff. This should
include training in:
pig production technology,
business management,
staff management,
pig welfare,
staff health and safety,
environmental management.
19.5. Retention of staff
A high turnover of staff on a pig unit is a waste of training and disruptive to the
performance of the unit. While pay rates are a very important factor in job
satisfaction the general working environment and relationships with line
managers and work colleagues are also important. There is a need for better
working conditions, better staff facilities on farms and for owners and
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 70 30/01/2012
managers to be proactive in retaining staff. Areas such as pension, insurance,
days-off, working hours, etc need to be addressed.
Staff facilities on many farms are poor. Improved facilities should include:
living accommodation (where provided),
hygiene during work (showers, hand washing, toilets, changing areas,
supply of workwear, laundry) and
basic kitchen (cooking, toaster, kettle, microwave, radio) and eating
facilities.
19.6. Occupational health in workers in pig units
Working inside pig units can potentially expose workers to airborne dust, gases
and other airborne particles which can have a negative impact on lung function.
It is important that levels of these pollutants in the air be minimised by
maintaining clean conditions, adequate ventilation, feeding diets with low protein
content and feeding systems which reduce dust emission. Noise is a particular
hazard especially when sows are being fed.
These issues should be addressed in the unit Health and Safety protocol for the
farm and should be enforced. Adequate personal protection equipment should
be provided (eye-protection, dust masks, ear protection, boots, clothing).
These are legal requirements and in the event of an accident failure to have
complied will have serious legal consequences.
20. Feed supply to pig production20.1. The Irish feed industry
The Irish Compound Feed Industry processes approximately 3.5 million tonnes
of animal feed annually. This figure has increased from about 3.0 million tonnes
in the early 1990s with most of the increase being in cattle feed. Compound pig
feed manufacture has declined over the past six years to its present level -
almost 0.6 million tonne, less than 20% of all commercially manufactured animal
feed (Table 20.1).
Intense competition between feed mills and the purchasing power of pig units
results in low profit margins for the high volume sow and finisher feeds. There
appears to be much higher margins in feeds for younger pigs (starter, link and
weaner). Nevertheless, the feed industry is not recognised as very profitable
and is not attracting outside investment.
There are fourteen commercial milling companies with capacities in excess of
7,000 tonnes per annum. The annual output ranges from 7,000 to c. 150,000 t/yr
(Table 20.2). Most of the mills manufacturing pig feed are in the south of the
country.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 71 30/01/2012
Figure 20.1. Location of principal pig feed manufacturing plants
Southern Milling
Kiernan Milling
P & V
Glanbia
Brett Bros
Lisavaird
Dairygold
P & V
Macroom
Barrett; Drinagh
AW Ennis
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 72 30/01/2012
Table 20.1 Provender Milling Republic of Ireland 2001 -2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Cattle 1,962,856 2,144,026 2,100,853 1,965,213 1,986,957 2,338,074
Pig 735,980 747,978 687,391 629,918 624,667 610,314
Poultry 478,724 492,686 485,150 488,051 490,697 453,571
Sheep 205,337 216,065 205,931 207,924 194,460 205,966
Horses 72,096 84,373 87,046 89,537 87,988 97,812
Pets 12,605 12,509 44,694 45,741 40,156 43585
Others 22,593 24,594 22,330 17,501 21,490 24085
Balancers 21,039 21,637 18,628
Minerals/Vitamins 54,084 61,635 124,920
Milk Replacers 9,255 8260 8412
Total 3,492,192 3,724,233 3,635,398 3,445,889 3,448,420 3,928,059
New EU Veterinary legislation is having profound effects on the future direction
of pig feed manufacture in Ireland. Single species feed manufacture and
certainly separate lines for ruminant and mono-gastric feeds is the order of the
day.
Restrictions on the use of medication in feeds will become even more strict in
future. The manufacture of special blends with medication included is a very
great risk for feed companies and the true cost to the mill in downtime, cleaning
and risk of cross contamination is seldom passed on to customers.
Table 20.2 Annual output of commercial feed millsOutput in tonnes
Mill annual output Under 10,000 10,000 to30,000
30,000 to 100,000 Over 100,000
Number of Mills 3 3 5 3
20.2. On-farm feed manufacture
The total feed requirement of the Irish pig industry is at least 925,000 tonnes.
This is based on pigmeat production of 21 pigs per sow from 155,000 sows to a
liveweight at slaughter and a liveweight feed conversion ratio from weaning to
slaughter of 2.46.
On-farm compounding has increased by 134,000 tonnes over the past six years,
a 73% rise. Home compounded pig feed stands at about 320,000 tonne annually,
almost 35% of pig feed manufactured in the Republic (Table 20.3). This
estimate is the difference between compound feed production and the
estimated annual requirement as shown below.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 73 30/01/2012
Table 20.3 Home milling versus Provender milling
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Pig feed Provender milling 735,980 747,978 687,391 629,918 624,667 594,000
Pig feed home milling 183,995 213,708 229,130 257,319 268,097 318,186
Total feed 919,975 961,686 916,521 887,237 892,764 912,186
Percentage home milling 20% 22% 25% 29% 30% 35%
Percentage provender millers 80% 78% 75% 71% 70% 65%
Dairy by-product diets 22,079 22,439 20,622 18,898 18,740 17,820
Dairy by-product fed 3,312 3,366 3,093 2,835 2,811 2,673
Other by-products fed 3,312 3,366 3,093 2,835 2,811 2,673
All feed to pigs 926,599 968,418 922,708 892,907 898,386 917,532
Sow population 160,000 155,000
Sow output (pigs sold) 21.9 21.9
Slaughter weight (kg live) 97 99
Feed efficiency per kilo live 2.64 2.73
Units mixing their own feed tend to be larger than those purchasing feed at c. 700
sows. Estimates of the amount of home produced feed vary due to differences in
categorisation of some units.
The rise in home mixing is due partly to an increase in the number of farms
home milling and partly to an expansion in herd size of those home milling. The
advent of computerized wet feeding on farms enabled pig farmers the option to
grind straight ingredients and to proportion and mix these.
Home mixing of pig feed usually involves the metering of cereals, protein feed
and other ingredients into the mixing tank of the liquid feed system. These
systems are usually highly automated and controlled by computer. The water :
feed ratio used is usually higher than that needed by the pigs for health and
growth resulting in a higher than necessary volume of manure.
Very few home mixing producers mix feed in a dry form for feeding dry as meal.
The development of home-compounding on larger pig units in Ireland has been
driven largely by the advantages from availing of manufacturing tax rates.
Table 20.4 Home milling in Republic of Ireland
Herd size [Sows integrated]
Scale 200 -499
500 –749
750 –999
1000 -1499
1500 -1999
2000 –2499
Totalunits
Sow herds 32 16 5 12 2 5 72
Totalsows
Average herd size 700 50,335
Source: Teagasc survey of units home mixing
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 74 30/01/2012
20.3. Principal feed ingredients and supply balance
The main feed ingredients used by feed manufacturers and by home-
compounders are barley, wheat and soya. Lesser used ingredients include maize,
sorghum, rapeseed meal, maize gluten, wheat pollard, sugar beet pulp, milk by-
products. It is normal practice to supplement feeds with a full range of
minerals and vitamins. Phytase is widely used to improve digestibility of
phosphorus in feeds of plant origin and so reduce the need for supplementation
with mineral phosphorus.
The net home-grown cereal tonnage available for animal feed manufacture in the
Republic of Ireland stands at 2.5 million tonnes (Table 20.5). Barley tonnage
hovers around 1 million and wheat around 0.8 million tonnes. On a national basis
pig diets require approximately 700,000 tonne of wheat and barley for
manufacture, split almost evenly between the two. This usage represents almost
fifty percent of all home grown wheat and thirty percent of home grown barley.
So although pig feed represents a lesser consumer of manufactured feed
ingredients, it requires almost 40% of all cereals grown on the island and
therefore competitive pig and poultry production sectors in Ireland are
essential for the success of the tillage sector.
Ireland is a net importer of cereals being about 80% self sufficient in 2000-
2001 (Eurostat – Agriculture Statistical Yearbook 2001, Table 2.14) in contrast
to Denmark, France, Germany and the UK which are over 100% self-sufficient
(119%, 200%, 124% and 113% respectively). The deficit is greatest in the case
of wheat where home production is under 70% of market requirements while
barley production is in slight surplus (CSO)
While fish meal and plasma protein are permitted to be used in pig feed the
requirements of the permitting system act as a deterrent.
Crystalline amino acids are widely used in pig feeds and allow the requirement of
the pig for essential amino acids to be met with a lower concentration of dietary
crude protein. Two benefits arise: (1) there is more efficient use of feed
energy i.e. the diet has a higher Net Energy (NE) value as less energy is wasted
in the deamination and excretion of the excess protein and (2) the excretion of
nitrogen in manure is reduced and less land should be required for utilisation of
the manure.
The crystalline amino acids in widespread use are lysine, methionine and
threonine with tryptophan used to a limited extent. Other amino acids which
are expected to become available at economic prices in the medium term are
valine, isoleucine and leucine.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 75 30/01/2012
Table 20.5. Cereal supply to the Irish Feed Industry (1,000 tonnes)
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total homegrown
2,174 2,165 1,964 2,147 2,501 1,934
Wheat 737 769 867 794 1,019 798
Winter 582 489 704 527 751 575
Spring 155 280 164 267 269 223
Barley 1,310 1,277 963 1,198 1,327 1,025
Winter 203 157 153 153 168 122
Spring 1,107 1,121 810 1,045 1,159 903
Imports
Wheat 630 575 769 681 721
Barley 34 64 116 110 43
Exports
Wheat 219 177 175 199 309
Barley 219 215 88 102 77
Fooduse
Wheat 358 385 370 364 348
Net cereal forfeed
2,042 2,027 2,216 2,273 2,531
20.4. Feed costs in Ireland
Feed prices in Ireland tend to be high in comparison with some other EU
countries. The high level of ingredient imports means that ingredient prices are
determined by the cost of ingredients abroad plus the cost of shipping inwards.
During the second half of 2006, global cereal prices have increased steeply –
driven by the demand for corn from the US bioethanol industry and by the
effect of the drought on Australian wheat production. The demand from the
bioethanol industry is likely to continue for the next several years and while
increased prices will stimulate higher acreages the large number of bioethanol
plants in production or being built in the US and Canada and the relative
profitability of bioethanol will keep feed ingredient prices high.
An unpublished analysis of feed costs in Ireland in 2002 identified a number of
factors such as the high proportion of imported ingredients, distribution costs
(partly due to the low density of pigs and mills), high mill sales and
administration costs, credit and the seasonal nature of compound feed
production. Distribution costs are a particular problem in Ireland with the low
density of mills compared e.g. with Brittany (Best, 2006).
The feed milling industry in Ireland has an unfavourable cost structure due to
the small size of individual mills, the dispersed nature of production and delivery
and the seasonal nature of production. In France there are 66 mills each with
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 76 30/01/2012
an annual output of 100,000 tonnes per year or more representing over 78% of
national output. In France poultry and pig feed tonnages accounted for 42% and
30% respectively of total tonnage in 2005 (ITIF, 2006). In the UK pig feed
accounts for about 18% of compound feed production and poultry a further 28%
(figures for October 2005 to September 2006DEFRA, 2006b).
In Ireland pig and poultry feed accounted for 18% and 14% respectively
indicating significant excess capacity in summer when very little cattle feed is
sold. It is inevitable then that mill overheads are carried disproportionately by
the pig and poultry sectors. In Ireland only two mills specialise in pig feed or pig
and poultry feed.
There is little reliable published information on feed manufacturing costs in
Ireland but anecdotal evidence suggests that contract milling costs (over and
above ingredient costs) in Ireland are high relative to e.g. US and Canada.
There is a need for feed industry costs to be benchmarked both internally and
against best practice internationally.
Forward purchase of feed ingredients is used by feed manufacturers to lessen
the impact of sudden rises. Pig producers who manufacture feed on farm do
likewise. Forward buying of compound feed by pig producers is considered only
when ingredients have recently risen steeply as at present (late 2007). “It is
impossible to eliminate risk entirely. During a period of low prices it would
probably be a sensible decision to buy forward for a year. When prices are high,
as at present, short term contracts might be the right decision to make. But
this assumes that next year’s harvest will be better than this year’s harvest….”
(Fowler, 2006b).
The widespread adoption of GM crops in the US and also in South America has
led to a relative shortage of and high prices for non-GM ingredients. The
slowness of EU procedures for authorisation for importation of grains from new
GM varieties (after safety assessment has been completed by the European
Food Safety Authority) is lagging far behind that in the US and other countries.
This has resulted in a ban on importation of product from GM varieties (in
particular maize grain and maize by-products) which are being grown
commercially in the US. The strict zero tolerance policy for the low-level
presence of EU non-approved in shipments from the US is a major concern.
This has been a major contributor to high feed prices in Ireland in 2007 and
could potentially result in a scarcity of soyabean meal in 2008 when some newly
authorised varieties are grown in the US and South America. The difficulty is
recognised in the EU Commission and a recent report states that the Atlantic
countries of the EU including Ireland are most affected since they tend to
import large tonnages of maize by-products from the US (DG AGRI, 2007).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 77 30/01/2012
There is an urgent need to speed up the process of authorisation once the EFSA
assessment has been completed.
20.5. Food industry by products
By-products contribute only a small percentage of the feed requirement of the
Irish pig industry. This is in contrast to the contribution of by-products in
other EU countries such as the UK, Netherland etc. The by-products most
widely used in Ireland are:
Yeast
Whey
Milk, etc.,
Pot ale syrup
Rice water
Pizza base
Fruit
In the past whey and other milk products contributed up to 12% of the annual
feed requirement of the Irish pig industry. Modern processing techniques can
recover lactose and some proteins from whey so that the nutrient content of
whey currently available is much less than in the past.
Products such as milk by-products, spent yeast, pizza bases, bakery waste and
chocolate can be recycled as pig feed supplying valuable nutrients and will
support good pig performance provided the complete diet is carefully
formulated. However, it is essential that the by-product be fresh, free from
harmful substances, maintain composition in storage and be consistent in
composition and quality. Consumption of by-products by pigs is of benefit to the
environment compared with disposal by means such as landfill, landspreading,
incineration or discharge to waste treatment plants.
20.6. Use of performance enhancers
A number of products (including some antibacterials and copper sulphate) have
been used in the past as digestive enhancers and under the right conditions
their use resulted in small but economical improvements in pig growth rate and
feed conversion efficiency. The use of antibacterials as digestive enhancers has
now been phased out but these have been replaced by:
feed acids,
acid salts,
organic trace minerals,
essential oils,
flavours and botanicals
enzymes
Most have little supporting efficacy data. Pig producers need to be much more
critical of ingredients and additives whose claims are not supported by reliable
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 78 30/01/2012
research reports. Inclusion of such unproven products in feeds adds
unnecessary cost.
20.7. Regulation of feed quality
Regulation of feed quality involves the Department of Agriculture and Food who
monitor imports of ingredients and manufactured feed for compliance with (1)
EU legislation, (2) Irish legislation and (3) declared ingredient or ingredient
category and (4) nutrient content.
In the case of compound feedingstuffs other than those intended for pets, the
exact percentages by weight of feed materials used in the feedingstuff must be
made available to the customer on request (SI 237 of 2003).
A comprehensive reference guide to feed legislation in Ireland may be found at:
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=feedingstuffs/index.xml
The constituent declarations required by law are of little practical value in
comparing or assessing pig feeds. Feed labels appear to be more about
regulation than customer information. Allowing the use of a product data sheet
to contain all the regulatory information would keep the label free for essential
nutritional information.
Dietary energy content which is probably the most important single measure of
feed quality need not be declared mainly because it would be impossible or
impractical to verify any claims.
With the emphasis on amino acid balance and amino acid digestibility it is
desirable that levels (total and digestible) as calculated from the ingredient
composition be declared. This information might not be verifiable by analysis
but could be confirmed from the mill records of ingredient analysis and feed
manufacture.
Since most pig feed is now delivered in bulk provision of additional information
on diet composition could be by electronic means greatly reducing the cost of
label printing and postage.
Formulation of feed may be on the basis of digestible energy (DE),
metabolisable, energy (ME) or net energy (NE) and total or standardised ileal
digestible (SID) amino acids. There is some advantage in moving to the more
precise NE and SID systems.
The composition of premixes which supply vitamins, minerals, amino acids and
possibly other ingredients such as enzymes needs to be much more
comprehensively described than at present.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 79 30/01/2012
The ban on the use of meat and bone meal in pig feeds in the mid 1990s removed
a cheap source of protein from pig feeding and at the same time resulted in
increased disposal costs for offal. Recently there appear to be tentative moves
at EU level to permit the use of meat and bone meal from poultry in pig feeding
and meat and bone meal from pigs in poultry diets (EESC, 2007). The European
Food Safety Authority in a scientific opinion concluded “that the risk of
transmitting BSE to pigs utilizing poultry Processed Animal Proteins and vice
versa is negligible. Consequently in this scenario any increase in the exposure
risk of BSE to humans would be negligible” (EFSA, 2007).
21. Research and development21.1. Bodies involved
Teagasc is the body charged by the government with responsibility for research
and development in pig production. The Teagasc pig service offers research,
advice and training within a unified management unit.
The Teagasc pig production research programme covers a range of areas
including nutrition and management, animal welfare, manure management, meat
quality, food safety and economics. The programme is closely linked with the
research programmes in Irish and overseas universities through location and
supervision of graduate students and jointly funded projects.
There is little research activity in pigmeat in either Teagasc or the universities.
In view of the importance of pigmeat to the agricultural economy, in per capita
consumption and food exports, there is an urgent need for an ongoing
programme of research into pigmeat quality and technology. This would at the
very least provide a skills base for industry development and problem solving.
Economic aspects of pig and pigmeat production and marketing are also ignored
in the research portfolios of the various institutions and this probably reflects
the industry’s lack of political clout.
21.2. Funding R & D in Ireland
The main source of funding for pig production R &D is the government through
the Grant-in-Aid to Teagasc and the universities.
Other sources of funding include:
Department of Agriculture Research Stimulus Fund (RSF),
Department of Agriculture Food Industry Research Measure Fund
(FIRM)
Department of Agriculture National Development Programme
EU Framework programmes
Customer fees (mainly for advisory contracts)
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 80 30/01/2012
Farm activity income
Contract research
21.3. Pig Research Levy
Since 1990 a Pig Research Levy has been in operation in Ireland. This was
negotiated by Teagasc with the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) and Irish
association of Pigmeat Processors (IAPP). The levy was set at 3 old pence (3.81
Euro cent) per pig from the producer and 3 old pence (3.81 Euro cent) from the
meat processor. The levy was intended to support research into pig production
amd pigmeat issues. Collection was not extended to the non-IAPP plants and
these now account for about 30% of the weekly kill or to live exports. The levy
collection is administered by the IAPP and controlled by a Research Levy
Committee of IFA and IAPP.
The potential income from the research levy (at the original rate) if applied to
all slaughterings in licensed plants (2.6 million pigs per year) is about €198,000
per year but producer spending on pig production and pigmeat research falls well
short of this figure. .
The level of collection and activities supported by the levy remain unclear to
producers and it is not known what proportion is devoted to research. About
1995, payment of the levy was made a condition of purchase of pigs by IAPP but
it is not clear if this policy was implemented.
Contributing pig producers should receive an annual statement of account
showing (1) the amount collected, (2) a list of projects supported, (3) the
amounts paid in respect of each and (4) the current balance in the fund.
If adjusted for inflation in the period from 1990 to 2007 (+ 62%) the levy
charge would be 6.2 Euro cent per pig from both producer and processor and
give a total income of €322,000 per year. In the absence of significant imput by
the pig industry into near market research it is inevitable that staff resources
will be deployed to other enterprises or towards research areas likely to attract
EU, national or commercial funding
The operation of producer levies/charges in a number of countries is discussed
in section 21.4 below. If the research levy in Ireland were paid at a level
comparable to those countries (25 Euro cent per pig) it could finance both an
expanded research programme and advisory/training service that could be
delivered without further payment by the producer. Total income to the fund
would be €900,000
21.4. Funding R & D abroad
Governments in many countries are tending to reduce support for near-market
or applied research and development. This has resulted in producer funding of
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 81 30/01/2012
these activities becoming much more important. Amounts invested and the
activities which are supported vary from country to country and it is difficult to
find a common thread. Table 21.1 shows the producer contribution and activities
supported in a number of countries. Funding can be from compulsory or
voluntary levies and activities supported include marketing, sales promotion,
disease control, R& D, carcass grading etc.
Voluntary levies tend in general to have a reduced collection rate since individual
producers may opt out of paying but still benefit from the activity of the fund.
Table 21.1. Producer funding of ex-farm activities in selected countries
Payment Agency and activities supported
Australia 1.54 Australia Pork Ltd – Residue monitoring;
promotion; R&D; staff training
New Zealand 2.40 New Zealand Pork Industry Board – promotion;
herd health; R&D; industry representation
Denmark 1.34 Danish Pig Marketing and promotion; breeding;
advisory; R&D
UK 1.60 British Pig (BPEX) – promotion; R&D
Canada 0.49 (SK);
0.66 (AB)
Prairie Swine Centre and provincial pork
councils – R&D; technology transfer;
promotion
USA 0.4% of
sale price
Pork Industry Board – promotion; consumer
information; R&D; education; state pork
boards
UK
The Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) is a Non Departmental Public Body,
funded through the collection of levies on sheep, pigs and cattle slaughtered for
human consumption or exported live supplemented by EU and Government grants
and from money earned from its own commercial operations.
Over recent years the MLC has created a new federal structure. Responsibility
for the setting and delivering of strategy for the deployment of levy income has
been devolved to four bodies of which the British Pig Executive (BPEX) is one.
The objective of BPEX is to determine the MLC’s Pig Strategy and to ensure
that GB pig levy payers’ money is efficiently deployed in line with this strategy.
BPEX operates with maximum autonomy, subject to MLC’s statutory
responsibilities.
The levy paid on pigs totals £1.05 (€1.60) per head. This breaks down to 65p
(€1.00) promotional levy, paid by the producer and 40p (€0.60) general levy
which is split equally between the producer and slaughterer.
Source: http://www.bpex.org/; http://www.mlc.org.uk/
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 82 30/01/2012
New Zealand
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board operates (under the New Zealand Pork
Industry Board Act 1997) in the interests of pig farmers to help attain the best
returns for New Zealand pigs and pork products. The board has five key
strategic areas of focus. These are:
Supply Chain Links - Secure a strong relationship between the Board and
other sectors of the supply chain by facilitating information exchange.
Product Differentiation - Ensure 100% New Zealand pork is the
consumers' first choice.
Biosecurity and Trade - Protect value for the New Zealand pork
producer.
Environmental Sustainability and Animal Welfare - Ensure that pork
producers are treated equitably; by maintaining acceptable standards for
environmental sustainability and animal welfare practices.
Research and Innovation - Secure the long-term future of the New
Zealand pork industry by facilitating the means of achieving competitive
production and innovation throughout the value chain.
Within these five key strategic areas of focus the Board encourages the
adoption of more efficient processes and practices for New Zealand pork
products through its R&D programmes.
The Board is funded by producers through a levy paid on all pigs at the time of
slaughter. The levy is currently set at NZ$4.45 (€2.40) per pig (plus
government sales tax). Source: New Zealand Gazette, August 17, 2006, p. 40.
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board will contribute A$50,000 in cash and
A$100,000 in kind each year to the Pork Cooperative Research Centre in
Australia, and as a core participant will be able to distribute the research
outcomes to members during the next seven years.
(Source:www.thepigsite.com/newsletter/295/newsletter-7th-february-2005)
http://www.pork.co.nz/nzpork/annual_report/2005_annual_report.pdf
Australia
Australian Pork Limited (APL) is the representative body for Australian pig
producers set up under legislation as a “a not-for-profit company combining
marketing, export development, research, innovation and strategic policy
development to assist in securing a profitable and sustainable future for the
Australian pig industry”. It is funded by a levy of A$2.525 (€1.54) per carcass
at slaughter of which 17.5 cent (10.7 Euro cent) goes to finance a Residue
Monitoring Programme and A$2.35 (€1.43) to APL. This is divided into A$1.65
(€1.01) for marketing and A$0.70 (€0.43) for R&D. In at least one state
(Western Australia) an additional levy of A$0.60 (€0.43) per pig is collected by
the Agricultural Produce Commission for R&D (Trezona, personal communication).
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 83 30/01/2012
The Pork Cooperative Research Centre, set up in 2005, is an initiative by the pig
industry in Australia, the Australian and state government and research
organizations and some commercial agri-business firms to provide R& D support
for the Australian pig industry. Its mission statement says “the CRC aims to
enhance the efficiency and cost competitiveness of the Australian pork
industry, while maintaining environmentally sustainable agricultural practices
allowing the efficient production of innovative pork products from enhanced
grain resources and with improved feed conversion efficiency.
The CRC will have an annual budget of c. A$12.0 million (€7.3 million) for
research, development and training.
The National Centre for Pork Industry Training and Education was established
with support from Australian Pork and The CRC for an internationally
competitive pork industry (Pork CRC). “The National Centre was developed to
provide positive images of the industry and quality training/education delivered
by motivated people to greatly enhance recruitment and retention into the
Australian pig industry.”
“The aims of the National Centre are:
Attraction of a greater number of more qualified and better motivated
workers to all levels of the Australian pig industry.
A higher piggery staff retention rate through better training/career
development and other support systems.
Improved technical and management skills in senior piggery staff through
better more flexible training options.”
Sources:
1. http://www.nationalporkcentre.com.au/:
2. Pork CRC Annual Report 2005-2006.
http://www.porkcrc.com.au/publications/report.pdf
3. Australian Pork Limited Annual Report 2005-2006.
http://www.australianpork.com.au/media/2005-2006.pdf
USA
The National Pork Board (NPB) in the US administers a checkoff programme of
$0.40 (€0.31) per $100 dollars value of pig sold or imported. NPB had a gross
income in 2005 of $63.3 millions (€48.9 millions) of which 61% was allocated to
national promotion programmes, 34% for national research and education
programmes and 5% for national customer information programmes.
About 20% of checkoff funds was returned to the pig producer bodies in the
individual states.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 84 30/01/2012
The mission of the NPB is described as: “The National Pork Board harnesses the
resources of all producers to capture opportunity, address challenges and
satisfy customers.” And its purpose as “The National Pork Board contributes to
the success of all pork producers by managing issues related to research,
education and product promotion and by establishing U.S. Pork as the preferred
protein worldwide.”
An analysis of the returns to the pork checkoff programme estimated the
return to the industry of at least $4.79 for every $1 invested in the checkoff
programme.
Source: 2005 – Year in review
http://www.pork.org/NewsAndInformation/News/docs/2005%20Annual%20Rep
ort.pdf
Source: Davis, G.C., Capps, Jr., Oral, Bessler, D.A., Leigh, J.H. and Nichols, J.P.
(2000). An Economic Evaluation of the Pork Checkoff Program. A Report to the
National Pork Board
Canada
Prairie Swine Centre Inc. (PSC) is a non-profit research and technology
corporation with expertise in three disciplines – behaviour, nutrition, and
engineering. The mission of Prairie Swine Centre Inc. is “to be a Centre of
Excellence in research, graduate education and technology transfer, all directed
at efficient sustainable pork production.” Through the development of original,
practical research results the research program, with a decidedly near market
emphasis, creates information to improve the financial position of pork
producers by defining feeding and management systems that maximize net
income. In addition, the Centre develops information to address issues and
opportunities in environment and animal well-being.
PSC was originally the swine research and teaching facility of the University of
Saskatchewan.
In 1987, the University of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Hog Marketing
Commission joined forces to review the operations and function of PSC. An
advisory board of industry representatives identified the need for increased
emphasis on grower-finisher research and the need to work more closely with
the commercial pork industry.
The mandate of Prairie Swine Centre includes research, technology transfer and
graduate education. The research program seeks to fill a niche identified by the
pork industry, to conduct near market research that can be applied within a one
to seven year time frame. Because of those close linkages with the commercial
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 85 30/01/2012
pork industry, technology transfer is emphasized as a central part of the
Centre’s operation.
Core funding for the Research and Technology Transfer Programs at Prairie
Swine Centre is provided by pork producer agencies in Saskatchewan, Alberta
and Manitoba, as well as Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture and Food.
This core funding provides the basic support for the Centre’s research
objectives, as well as a Technology Transfer program.
Core funding is multiplied many times over (currently five) by applying for
specific project funding from additional funding sources. Project funding comes
from both the public sector (e.g.: ADF, Alberta Agriculture Research Institute,
NSERC and USDA) and the private sector (e.g.: feed and drug companies and
equipment manufacturers). Contract Research represents a growing source of
funds to the Centre.
Sale of stock is also an important revenue item for the Centre. Animal sales
must cover the cost of animal production, and should also provide funds to
support the Centre’s Research and Technology Transfer programs. Excess
revenues from the sale of stock are also set-aside in an income stabilization
fund to support the Centre when market prices weaken.
Source: http://www.prairieswine.com/about/index.html
Saskatchewan
Sask Pork is a producer managed organization operating programmes and
research for the Saskatchewan pork industry and promotion of hogs and pork
produced in Saskatchewan. It is funded from a checkoff levy of Can$0.75
(€0.49) per pig (2003 figure).
Source: http://www.saskpork.com/pdfs/2004_annual_report.pdf
Alberta
The Alberta Pork Producers Development Corporation (known as Alberta Pork) is
a self-sustaining, non-profit oriented association that operates on behalf of
Alberta pork producers. The organization currently collects a Can$1.00 (€0.66)
per head service charge on market, breeding, or cull animals in addition to the
25 cents (€0.16) per head service charge on animals 22 kg or less (weaners).
These funds are used for the development, growth and promotion of the Alberta
pork industry.
Source:
http://www.albertapork.com/Uploads/About_Us/Annual_Report/2005/GM.pdf
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 86 30/01/2012
Staffing of pig production research in Teagasc amounts to 3.5 researchers and
in UCD to 1 researcher who also has a teaching role. This compares very
unfavourably with research staffing in other countries even in those with
industries of comparable size such as Australia.
22. Technology transfer22.1. Teagasc
Teagasc Pig Development Officers (currently five in number) service pig
producers from offices in Moorepark, Athenry, Tullamore, Ballyhaise and
Bagenalstown. Producers pay an annual fee for the independent business and
technology service which is based on the analysis of herd performance data,
feed costs and financial records and benchmarking these against industry
averages using the Teagasc PigSys programme.
Means of technology transfer employed by Teagasc include:
Farm visits
Review of pig unit business operations
Annual farmers’ conference
Presentations to technical conferences
Bi-monthly newsletter
Popular articles in newspapers and magazines
Meetings with producers
Scientific papers
Pig producers should be encouraged to make more widespread use of electronic
communication methods and Teagasc in turn could deliver more frequent and
more timely information by e.g. email and website.
The Teagasc R& D programme is monitored by the Pig Industry Development
Committee on which sit representatives of the various sectors. The
effectiveness of this committee could be improved by more deliberation by the
bodies represented prior to meetings.
22.2. Private sector
Feed suppliers and supplement suppliers provide a technical backup service to
their customers. Their role is primarily one of sales and debt collection with
some technical support for the products supplied and for the firm by which they
are employed. Private sector consultants also provide services such as
processing planning applications and license applications.
22.3. Veterinary
A small number of veterinary surgeons specialising in pig health provide a
veterinary service to pig producers, who may only purchase most medication on
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 87 30/01/2012
presentation of a prescription. Producers will have used the veterinarian as a
consultant on the herd health and biosecurity programme and the vet is required
to visit the unit and inspect the pigs at least every 60 days. The intensity of pig
inspection at these visits varies greatly.
23. Environmental issues23.1. The planning process
Planning permission is required for agricultural buildings for the rearing of pigs
when the floor area exceeds 75 square metres (SI 600 of 2001).
An intensive pig unit will have a roofed-over area of close to 1.0m2 per finishing
pig, 5.0m2 per breeding sow (including progeny to 30kg liveweight) and 10.0m2 per
breeding sow (including progeny to 90kg liveweight) in an integrated unit.
In the past the main issues in relation to the granting of planning permission for
pig units related to the spreading of pig manure and the controls that Local
Authorities saw fit to apply. The application of animal manure to farmland is
now regulated under S.I. 378 (2006) and the distribution of manure from all pig
sites must comply with these regulations. This allows the Planning Authorities
make their decisions of granting or not granting permission based upon the
suitability of the site of any proposed pig development, having regard to the
management of manures and wastes generated on the site. Once the pig
producer can assure and vouch that there is sufficient land available to the unit
to spread the manure produced in accordance with SI 378 there should be no
requirement for the detailed “third party” information that was required in the
past.
The planning procedure
Once a valid application is received by the Planning Authority (local county
council) the application must be decided upon or a request for further
information must be made within 9 weeks (unless an extension in the decision
making period is sought by the Planning Authority and is given a written consent
by the Applicant). The grant of permission to develop will usually be subject to a
number of conditions. Once granted a permit is valid for 5 years.
Objections, Appeals, Bord Pleanala
An Applicant for permission and any person who made submissions or
observations in writing in relation to the planning application to the planning
authority in accordance with the permission regulations and on payment of the
appropriate fee, may, at any time within 4 weeks of a decision by the Planning
Authority appeal to An Bord Pleanala against a decision of the Planning
Authority.
The stated objective of An Bord Pleanala is to deal with 90% of cases within 18
weeks (the statutory time objective). The percentage of cases being decided
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 88 30/01/2012
within the 18 week statutory time objective has fallen back from 78% in 2005
to 53% in 2006. This can lead to delays in decisions for granting of pig
developments.
Fees for Planning
The fees for planning permission applications are set in Schedule 9 of the
Planning and Development Regulations, SI 600 of 2001. Pig units may be
considered as “agricultural” or “commercial” developments in different counties.
The “development” charges that accompany some planning decisions can be high
and vary from one local authority to another as do the “conditions of planning”
applied. There is need for greater transparency and consistency across local
authority areas in the application of these “development charges”.
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
An Environmental Impact Statement is mandatory if a proposed pig
development exceeds:
2000 places for production pigs (over 30kg) in a finishing unit,
400 places for sows in a breeding unit or
200 places for sows in an integrated unit (as per Class 1 (e) (ii) of
Schedule 5, Part 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001)
A local authority may request an EIS for developments below the thresholds but
is not required by law to do so.
23.2. Licensing
From 8th May 2007 every pig unit will be required to have applied for an
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) license if it exceeds the
following:
750 places for sows in a breeding unit
285 places for sows in an integrated unit
2000 places for production pigs
These limits apply whether the stock are within the same complex or within 100
metres of the same complex.
“Breeding unit” means a piggery in which pigs are bred and reared up to
30kg in weight.
“Integrated unit” means a piggery in which pigs are bred and reared to
slaughter.
“Production pig” means any pig over 30kg in weight which is being
fattened for slaughter.
“Sow” means female pig after first farrowing
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 89 30/01/2012
Using these definitions and assuming typical sow replacement rates the limits in
terms of mated females as traditionally categorised are approximately:
875 places for mated females in a breeding unit
340 places for mated females in an integrated unit
2000 places for production pigs
These regulations are set out in S.I. 279 of 2006.
The licensing of pig units should be more manageable if it can be agreed that the
requirements of SI – 378 (2006) supersede the conditions in individual licenses.
If the Licence is “Site-based” and sensible there should be no problems in
compliance. Some of the problems in the past have related to the issue of
manure being a “waste” and being policed accordingly.
The cost of a license application and ongoing renewal and monitoring costs has
had the unintended effect of making medium sized units (just above the
threshold) less viable and promoted development of larger units.
23.3. Nitrates Action Plan
Pig producers have a number of concerns in relation to certain environmental
issues. The most immediate issues relate to the management of manure to
comply with SI – 378 – EC Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of
Water Regulations of 2006. Other pending legislation that could affect their
business will be in relation to the Water Framework Directive, the Groundwater
Directive and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Directive. While pig producers have no
issue with having to comply with the legislation they are concerned that there
may be a “bias” from certain sections of the Department of Environment,
Heritage and Local Government that could affect their economic viability in the
long-term.
Government pronouncements tend to be supportive of the development of the
pig industry e.g. Smith (2005). However, pig producers are not reassured that
government policy in relation to environmental issues (as applied to the pig
sector) is science based. There is a perception among a substantial body of
producers that Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government has
as its objective the elimination of the pig production sector. Legislation is an
important determinant of whether an industry such as pig production expands or
contracts (Informa Economics, 2005).
Pig producers themselves need to recognise that environmental controls have
become necessary. However, it would appear that despite its small contribution
to manure nutrients being applied to land that the sector has been singled out
for special treatment e.g. SI 378 of 2006.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 90 30/01/2012
SI – 378 (2006) coupled with the European Court Judgement made in 2005 (ECJ
case 416/02), defining animal manure not to be a waste when used to fertilise
farmland in accordance with Good Farming Practice, should have the positive
effect of clarifying the situation where pig manure can be used by other
farmers. There is a fear among customer farmers of their Single Farm Payment
being penalised if they inadvertently exceed the 170kg Organic N (hectare limit
set down in S.I .– 378 (2006). Pig producers and all concerned in delivering
information in relation to the regulations need to help farmers overcome such
concerns. A positive promotion of the benefits of using pig manure must be
pursued by all concerned (i.e. IFA, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, Teagasc, etc).
Pig producers will need assistance in assuring their farmer customers that the
use of pig manure in compliance with S.I. – 378 (2006) is not going to lead to an
extra level of inspection by the relevant authorities.
DAFF appears to be promoting the processing of manure and in particular
separation into solid and liquid fractions. There is a need for a clear ruling from
DAFF, DOEHLG and EPA as to whether processing of manure will result in one or
other fraction being considered a “waste” and being policed under waste
handling regulations rather than as “manure”. Relevant processing options might
include:
Separation into solid and liquid fractions
Anaerobic digestion (manure alone or manure commingled with organic
waste)
Residue after nitrification/denitrification.
24. Manure management24.1. Regulatory control
Apart from water pollution aspects, the principal regulatory control on manure
spreading to date has been the licensing system and so applied to bigger units
only. SI 378 of 2006 extends these controls to all farms using more strict
criteria and a requirement for more detailed record keeping.
24.2. Land application
If possible, pig manure should be utilised as a fertiliser to meet the crop
requirements on lands in the vicinity of the unit thereby minimising transport
costs.
Pig manure is used as a substitute for chemical fertiliser. It is a rich source of
N, P, K and trace minerals. The concentration of each nutrient varies with the
dry matter content (water dilution) and with the diet fed. Formulation of feeds
to contain lower levels of crude protein and phosphorus means that the N and P
concentrations in manure can be significantly reduced. However, this will reduce
its fertiliser value. The application of SI 378 should take into account the
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 91 30/01/2012
efforts of pig producers and the feed industry to minimise manure nutrient
excretion.
24.3. Contribution of pig manure to nutrient application to land
The contribution of pig manure to the amount of fertiliser nutrients being
applied to land amounts to about 13,500 tonnes N and 2,600 tonnes P compared
with about 360,000 tonnes and 35,000 tonnes of chemical N and P respectively.
This is 3.3% of the chemical N and 7% of the chemical P used on farms in
Ireland annually (Table 23.1).
Table 23.1. Fertiliser use in Ireland 1989 to 2005 (1,000 tonnes)
Year Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus(P)
Potassium (K) TotalFertilisers
1989/90 379 65 158 1793
1990/91 370 63 153 1745
1991/92 358 59 148 1646
1992/93 378 61 152 1767
1993/94 405 60 145 1820
1994/95 429 62 151 1921
1995/96 417 63 152 1896
1996/97 380 54 132 1699
1997/98 432 50 124 1830
1998/99 443 51 126 1850
1999/00 408 49 123 1730
2000/01 369 43 107 1546
2001/02 364 42 106 1523
2002/03 388 44 111 1628
2003/04 363 43 111 1538
2004/05 352 39 101 1479
2005/06 345 37 93 1427
2006/07 322 32 85 1310 (Est)
Source: DAFF
24.4. The Treatment of Pig Manure
Various methods of treatment have been devised. These include biological,
chemical and physical methods as well as various combinations of these methods.
There is on-going research throughout the world into treatment methods.
There are a number of reasons who processing of manure might be considered
including:
To reduce handling and transport costs while facilitating its use as a
fertiliser
To reduce the nutrient content and thereby reduce the land area
required while complying with regulations.
To reduce odours
To utilise pig manure as an energy source
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 92 30/01/2012
Some treatments being proposed or considered such as anaerobic digestion,
separation do not change the quantity of N and P to be dealt with. This needs to
be taken into account in evaluating investment in manure treatment.
For a detailed discussion on manure processing technology see Martin (2006).
24.5. Treatment Costs
The initial capital investment (less any grant-aid obtained) will have to be
financed consisting of interest payments in addition to the repayment of the
capital borrowed.
The treatment facility can be depreciated over 10-15 years but not over more
than 20 years for any part of the facility.
Operating cost include energy costs as well as repairs and maintenance. There
are also likely to be additional labour costs involved.
Treatment costs can be expressed per m3 treated. Reducing the volume of
manure to be treated is critical in minimising treatment costs. This means
minimising the amount of water used or allowed to get into collection/storage
tanks without compromising the welfare or performance of the pigs. Water
management to minimise volumes is the starting point in dealing with manure.
The most common treatment options that have been considered include the
following;
Separation
Anaerobic digestion
Nitification/De-nitrification
The different treatments have advantages and disadvantages. Any proposals in
relation to manure treatment need to take account of whether this treatment
changes the classification of pig manure to that of waste and, thereby, making it
subject to Directive 75/422. (i.e. the Waste Directive). The costs of manure
treatment by the methods listed above is prohibitive when compared to
transport and application of the manure to land as fertiliser.
The following points should be carefully considered:
Pig manure is a rich source of plant nutrients and is valuable.
Irrespective of how it is used or treated, aim to maximise the dry matter
content.
Any consideration of manure treatment must be based on clear reasons
for adopting the technology and a proper cost/benefit analysis.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 93 30/01/2012
Separation into solid and liquid fractions can be used to deal with the
high P content of raw manure by moving it to a separate site but the cost
of separation and handling two streams of material is very high.
Nitrification/de-nitrification is only relevant when there is no economical
solution to excess organic N.
Anaerobic digestion has nothing to offer in dealing with excess N and P.
Successful manure treatment involves a major capital investment and
very substantial running costs
24.6. Farm Waste Management Scheme
A scheme of grant aid for manure storage was announced in 2006 with a closing
date for applications of 31/12/2006 and a final date for completion of works of
2008. This scheme also allowed grant aid for feeding systems, decanter
centrifuge separators, specialised manure handling equipment, equipment for
application of slurry, farm yard manure and soiled water.
25. Food safety issues with pigmeatFood safety issues associated with pigmeat include the presence of pathogens
(any organism that is capable of producing disease www.ucbiotech.org/glossary/)
and parasites (an organism that lives off another animal, but does not generally
kill it www.ecobugs.com/glossary.htm) and also the presence of undesirable
substances such as antibiotics.
A number of pathogens are associated with food production. The one of most
relevance to pig production in Ireland is Salmonella. Other pathogens which are
potentially important include Verocytoxigenic E. coli, Campylobacter spp.,
Cryptosporidium spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica and
Staphlococcus aureus.
25.1. Salmonella
Salmonella is one of the most common food poisoning agents. Infection can
cause some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps,
diarrhoea, fever and headache 6 to 48 hours after ingestion. The illness can
last for 1 to 2 days but may be prolonged depending on the immune status and
the particular type of Salmonella.
In pigs, Salmonella is generally seen in 1st and 2nd stage weaners and manifests
itself as diarrhoea or septicaemia and can result in death if untreated. The
asymptomatic carrier pig is of greater food safety significance than the pig
showing clinical symptoms. Pigs can be carriers of Salmonella and shed the
bacteria in the faeces intermittently especially when stressed. Handling and
transport around slaughter result in increased shedding of Salmonellae and has
the potential for carcass contamination.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 94 30/01/2012
The national Salmonella control programme (described by Kelliher, 2002) aims to
reduce carcass contamination by reducing the incidence of carrier pigs at
slaughter.
Herds are categorised into low, medium and high incidence (Category 1, 2 and 3
respectively) based on the results of regular testing of meat juice samples from
pigs at slaughter. Herds are assigned to Category1, 2 or 3 if the percentage of
positive for Salmonella antibodies is (1) less than 10%, (2) 10 to 50% and (3) over
50%. The percentage positive is a weighted average of the three most recent
tests taken 3 to 5 months apart. A herd certificate valid for five months is
issued.
Responsibility for ensuring a test is carried out rests with the herd owner and if
testing is not carried out within the required period then the herd will not have
categorisation and must be treated as category 3. Herds selling pigs to
Northern Ireland are not tested unless the producer organises this e.g. by blood
testing on the farm.
Pigs from category 3 herds must be slaughtered on separate days or times.
Head meat and selected offal from these pigs may not enter the food chain or
do so only if heat treated. The extra cost of handling pigs from category 3
herds is at present borne by meat plants at an estimated cost of €4 per pig.
When the Salmonella control scheme was introduced a penalty system was
envisaged for category 3 herds as is the case in Denmark.
Herds without a valid certification are subject to the same restrictions as
category 3 herds. At present about 4,000 pigs per week are being restricted
and about 50% of these are pigs are from herds without a valid certificate.
25.2. Parasites
Ascaris suum: The roundworm (A. suum) is probably the most widespread of
the worm parasite but (at least in pigs kept indoors) is easily controlled by
anthelmintics and hygiene. During its life cycle it migrates through the tissues
and can cause liver lesions (milk spot) which result in downgrading/condemnation
of livers.
Other parasites of pigs are more a concern for productivity (growth rate,
health, feed conversion efficiency) and carcass appearance e.g. mange than for
food safety. There is anecdotal evidence that the level of liver condemnations
is higher than it needs to be.
25.3. Quality assurance at the meat plant
Ante-mortem inspection: Each animal presented for slaughter is examined by
the veterinary inspector to assess its fitness for slaughter for human
consumption.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 95 30/01/2012
Post-mortem inspection: Each carcass is subjected to post-mortem inspection
by a veterinary inspector to assess its fitness for human consumption. Meet
unfit for human consumption is not allowed to enter the food chain.
Checks on hygiene rules and plant operations: The veterinary inspector
carries out check on all aspects of plant hygiene and operations including
slaughtering and carcass dressing, handling of edible and inedible offals, cutting
and further processing, wrapping, packing, storage and transport. The results of
these checks are recorded and, in the case of non-compliance, appropriated
enforcement action is initiated.
In addition to inspection by the Irish authorities meat plants are subject to
inspection and auditing by customers e.g. retail chains and secondary processors.
Some plants are licensed by the US Department of Agriculture who carry out
regular audits.
The Bord Bia Pigmeat Quality Assurance (PQA) Scheme is an integrated scheme
involving the farmer and the processing plant working in partnership to provide
the customer with quality assured product. The scheme was first introduced in
1989 and was substantially revised in 1997 to incorporate recognized
Internationally Quality Management Systems, Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control points (HACCP) and EU Food Hygiene Legislation.
A revised scheme PQA scheme (revised to EN 45011 Standard) was introduced
in 2007.
It would appear appropriate that farm audits under the PQA scheme be funded
by DAFF as is already done for the beef QA scheme.
25.4. Undesirable substances in meat
Mycotoxins
Mycotoxins are toxic metabolites of various fungal species. Due to their
chemical stability, some mycotoxins such as ochratoxin A persist not only in feed
ingredients such as stored cereals but also in various products from animals
consuming mycotoxin contaminated feed. There is increasing evidence that
ochratoxin A occurs in slaughter pigs and their feed in areas such as Northern
Europe. Ochratoxin A is a mycotoxin produced by the Aspergillus and Penicillium
species of storage molds. Its presence in animal products is significant because
it is a well characterized nephrotoxin (i.e. is poisonous to the kidney).
Residues from animal remedies
Antibiotics used for the treatment of animal diseases must be prescribed by a
veterinary surgeon. The use of antibiotics for growth promotion purposes ended
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 96 30/01/2012
in January 2006. Animal remedies must be administered in accordance with the
conditions of use of that product. Specified withdrawal periods must be
observed if the animals products are intended for human consumption.
It is a legal requirement that all treatments given to animals intended for human
consumption must be recorded. The name of the animal remedy, the amount
given and by whom and the withdrawal periods are some of the records that
must be kept in an ‘Animal Remedies Register’. Pig units must be visited by a
veterinarian every 60 days.
Residue sampling: Under the residue monitoring plan drawn up in compliance
with Council Directive 96/23/EC, veterinary inspectors at slaughtering plants
take random and targeted samples of specified tissues for residue analysis at
the Central Meat Control Laboratory, the State Laboratory and other
participating laboratories. The veterinary inspector may also take samples from
any meat where there is a suspicion that such meat contains residues above the
legal limits. In these cases the sample meat is detained until the results are
received. Any meat found to contain residues is condemned and is removed from
the food chain.
The meat plants themselves carry out systematic screening of carcasses (in
some cases all carcasses) for residues. Any samples found to be positive must
be reported to DAFF.
Where residue violations are more likely to occur e.g. sow carcasses there is
additional targeted sampling of such carcasses.
The incidence of violative residues of antimicrobials in pig meat has declined
substantially as shown in Table 24.1 to a current level of about 1 per 1000
sampled using a targeted samling procedure (NFRD, 2006).
Table 24.1. Results of residue testing of pigmeat for antimicrobials
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
No. samples
tested
52,030 56,757 48,200 31,476 24,924
No. non
compliant
346 280 186 91 26
Hormones are never administered to pigs to improve growth rate or other
quality attributes. Similarly, beta-agonists used in the past to improve leanness
in beef cattle have not been used in pigs.
Sources of Information
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 97 30/01/2012
Pigmeat Quality Assurance Scheme (PQAS).
http://www.bordbia.ie/go/Industry/Producers/quality_schemes/pork.html
Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (2001). The Safe Food
Chain.. Every Link is Vital
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/publicat/FOOD_SAFETY_DOC.pdf
Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2005). Prudent use of medicines, pesticides
and chemicals on farms to ensure food safety. www.fsai.ie
Teagasc www.teagasc.ie/nfc/research/foodsafety/fs-pathogens.htm
26. Animal health issuesA high health status in pigs or other animals is achieved by founding the herd
using pigs free of the most debilitating diseases (mainly enteric and respiratory
diseases) and striving by good biosecurity practices to exclude infection.
Exclusion of disease is easier in intensive rather than extensive systems.
Within the pig unit spread of disease can be controlled by segregation of
animals by age, by using smaller numbers in each airspace, control of incoming
stock and control of vectors such as people, equipment and wildlife. Over time
there is almost always a deterioration in herd health and periodic destocking and
repopulation should be considered.
Destocking results in a significant reduction in income for a period and whether
it is a wise decision depends on (1) the current health status of the herd, (2)
improvrovement in performance of the new herd and (3) how long the new herd
will retain its status. For a discussion on destocking and repopulation see
McKeon (2006)
26.1. Biosecurity/OverviewMost of the common pig production diseases occur in Ireland. However, serious
diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease and Swine Fever have not occurred in
pigs in Ireland in living memory.
Freedom from these and other serious diseases is recognized as contributing a
competitive advantage on Irish producers in terms of production costs. This
good health status also means that Ireland is an attractive source of breeding
stock for foreign buyers. The preservation and improvement of this health
status is crucial to the maintenance and expansion of this trade.
Since 1993 the National Pig Health Council has implemented voluntary codes of
practice for the importation of live pigs and semen from abroad with the co-
operation of the pig breeding companies based here. These involve pre and post
importation health checks and isolation periods for imported stock.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 98 30/01/2012
While there is a high level of compliance with the code from firms located
within the Republic of Ireland there is concern over imports over the border
with Northern Ireland
In the intervening period two diseases not previously recognized in Ireland have
occurred here. PRRS (Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome) was first
found in 1999 and must have spread from Northern Ireland where the disease
was detected earlier.
Post weaning Multi systemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) is a serious disease of
unknown/unproven aetiology which is now to be found in many countries
throughout the world. This problem is now widespread throughout the
production sector and is a key factor in high mortality and poor thrive in growing
pigs.
The issues around pig health and disease cannot be separated from the herd
size structure of the industry in Ireland. At official level it is essential that
any disease control and biosecurity measures be implemented on an all-Ireland
basis.
Not alone is the average sow herd size 424 sows but the vast majority of pigs
are bred and finished on the one site. Especially on the larger units this results
in large concentrations of pigs together and impacts very significantly on
disease control and eradication measures.
Biosecurity procedures on many pig units leave a lot to be desired and expose
the units to infection with any one of several production diseases. Areas which
need attention include entry to the unit of veterinarians, service personnel,
replacement breeding stock, fencing and exclusion of wildlife. For a review of
biosecurity practices and recommendations for pig units in Ireland see Lynch et
al. (2003).
26.2. Aujeszkys DiseaseThe eradication of Aujeszkys disease(AD) has been a very drawn out process.
Considerable progress has been made more recently in eradicating this disease
from the Republic. With the number of positive herds now less than 8, decisive
action is required to complete the task. Failure to push on and complete the job
now runs the risk of, not alone, not achieving eradication but of having the
disease spread to units that are presently clear. Clear herds adjacent to
infected units or to farm land receiving pig manure from an AD positive unit
should be informed and be aware of the risk posed to them.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 99 30/01/2012
Of no less importance is the eradication of the disease from Northern Ireland
given the free movement of pigs to and from Northern Ireland. Close co-
operation with the veterinary and animal health authorities is essential in the
interests of producers North and South.
26.3. PRRSPRRS is a serious disease but in conjunction with other diseases such as PMWS,
Swine Dysentery or Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia the impact is considerably
multiplied. Movement restrictions apply to herds found to be PRRS positive.
These prove to be a hindrance to the owners such that there is a reluctance to
test for the presence of the disease on the part of herds that have not been
found to be positive. It is understood that PRRS is endemic in Northern Ireland.
All cull sows from Northern Ireland are transported to the Republic for
slaughter and pose a significant risk to clear herds here.
As in the case of AD, herds adjacent to positive herds or herds close to lands
used for manure spreading from PRRS positive herds are not informed of the
situation or of the risks.
While the eradication of PRRS appears an unrealistic objective at present a
coherent policy to curtail the spread of the disease is required from
Department of Agriculture and Food and from pig producers.
26.4. Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome
(PMWS)Many pig units have incurred serious production and financial losses in recent
years due to this pig health problem. The development of vaccines, autogenous
and commercial, offers some prospects for a solution if at a substantial cost to
the producer.
26.5. Salmonella Control ProgrammeSee above section 24.
26.6. Other production diseasesMycolplasma pneumonia is largely controlled by use of vaccines. In some cases,
dosages and timing of application have been modified by veterinary surgeons.
Swine dysentery has potential to cause major damage to units.
Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia has been an intractable problem on many units
and the reason for destocking/repopulation in several cases.
Colitis/ileitis – A new enteric condition that has become much more prevalent in
recent years.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 100 30/01/2012
Coccidiosis – has become more prevalent in suckling pigs. The condition is caused
by a parasite and use of appropriate disinfectants and oral dosing will help in
control.
26.7. Veterinary Laboratory ServiceThe Department of Agriculture and Food have Regional Veterinary Laboratories
at key locations throughout the country. Given the limited amount of pig work
required to be carried out at any one centre the opportunity for staff to
develop expertise in the investigation of pig health problems is limited.
Existing private veterinary practitioners require easy access to dedicated
specialist pig laboratory and staff. The concentration of pig diagnostic services
into fewer but substantially larger units is feasible with the improved
accessibility by courier or other methods of transport.
The designation of one central laboratory which would provide the requisite
expertise in pig health and facilities should be considered and staff provided
with the necessary training.
26.8. Pig Health MonitoringVery considerable information on farm pig health problems can be obtained
through the post-mortem of pigs on the slaughter line. Done on a regular basis,
and typically every 3 months, an examination of a sample of pigs would provide
the unit and the veterinary adviser with excellent information enabling
appropriate changes to be made to herd health programmes. Currently, to obtain
this information the veterinary adviser has to visit the slaughter plant when pigs
from the unit are being slaughtered. Veterinary advisers are seriously curtailed
in doing this work by problems in relation to timing, travelling and compliance
with restrictions on visiting pig units subsequent to plant visits.
Proposals to develop a national pig herd health monitoring system, initially on a
pilot basis, would have provided a wealth of useful information for individual
units and deserved support. It is disappointing that this proposal has not been
supported
The scheme proposed was separate from the inspections carried out on behalf
of the Department of Agriculture and Food and for which producers pay a levy
per pig. These relate to food safety issues.
A national Pig Health Monitoring Scheme should be re-considered and DAFF
should consider providing some funding at least for start-up.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 101 30/01/2012
26.9. Pig Health CouncilEstablished in 1993 in response to concerns about PRRS in Britain and Europe as
well as the lifting of the requirement to have imported livestock placed in
quarantine on arrival in this country, the NPHC serves as a consultative forum
representing the various sectors of the industry including DAFF on issues of pig
health. As well as overseeing the voluntary protocols on pig importations the
NPHC provides guidance on programmes to improve pig herd health. The role of
the NPHC needs to be reviewed and adapted to the changes that have been
taking place in pig production and in the industry.
27. Animal Welfare issues
Developments in animal welfare on pig farms over the next 10 years will primarily
be driven by legislation. EU legislation governing the welfare of pigs on farms is
laid down in Commission Directive 2001/93/EC and in Council Directive
2001/88/EC (amending Directive 91/630/ EEC laying down minimum standards
for the protection of pigs). The Irish Department of Agriculture and Food laid
out the terms of this legislation in a booklet entitled ‘Pig welfare requirements –
On farm and in transit’ (http://www.agriculture.gov.ie). Many of the amendments
are already in place with others coming into force in 2013. However, there is
evidence that the degree of compliance with aspects of the legislation is low.
This follows from a series of animal welfare investigations carried out in
Estonia, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain by the Food
and Veterinary Office (FVO) in 2005. While Ireland was not included in these
investigations it is likely that there are also producers here that are not fully
complying with the legislation. It is crucial that any strategy for the
development of the Irish pig industry advocates strict adherence to all existing
and future welfare legislation. However, meeting aspects of the current
legislation will pose an enormous challenge to producers predominantly owing to
the added costs involved but also to the shortage of skilled labour.
In October 2007 the European Food Safety Authority produced two Scientific
Opinions which were recently adopted by the Scientific Panel on Animal Health
and Welfare (AHAW). One concerned fattening pigs and the other boars,
lactating and pregnant sows and unweaned piglets:
(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ScientificPanels/efsa_locale-
1178620753812_AHAW.htm). It is possible that further legislation could ensue
from these reports. There is doubt as to whether some of the legislation
already in place resulted in a net improvement to pig welfare, particularly in the
case of group housing for pregnant sows. This may be because the research on
which such legislation was based predominantly employed behavioural welfare
indicators. Curtis (2007) argues that animal performance measures are more
objectively measurable indicators of an animal’s state of being (welfare) in the
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 102 30/01/2012
absence of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its conscious
feelings. In any case the pig industry needs to be aware of any proposed animal
welfare legislation and make reasoned submissions in advance. For this reason
‘major welfare risk’ areas identified in the aforementioned reports are
highlighted below.
Ultimately, trained staff with a good temperament and attitude to animals,
feeding adequate amounts of a nutritionally adequate diet and good housing
conditions are the principal determinants of good animal welfare. The same
factors promote high productivity. The primary role of the committed
stockperson in promoting well-being cannot be over emphasised. Several
studies show better growth rate in pigs and better fertility in sows which are
treated well.
27.1. Environmental enrichment/manipulable materials
Paragraph 4 of the Annex to Commission Directive 2001/93/EC states that from
1 January 2003 “pigs must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of
material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities, such as
straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such…”.
This legislation is supported by scientific evidence that pigs have a requirement
for environmental enrichment to satisfy their motivation to explore and forage
and that they benefit both developmentally and in terms of welfare from the
presence of environmental enrichment. However, the FVO reports found that
some farmers were not providing manipulable materials whilst others were using
less suitable materials such as chains. One of the most important quality of an
enriching substrate is that the pig gets ‘feedback’ from it’s interactions with
the material. In effect this means that the material must be destructible or
edible. There is unanimous agreement among pig welfare scientists (Bracke,
2006; AHAW, 2007) that chains are not effective enriching materials.
Materials such cloth strips or rubber ‘toys’ are more effective in occupying pigs
but such items do not last long very long.
There are two important constraints on the use of substrates such as straw.
The first is labour availability. The daily replenishment of enriching substrates
is a time consuming task. Recent results from Hillsborough show that it takes
approximately 6 minutes longer to clean out pens and re-fill racks with straw for
large groups of dynamic sows then to simply clean the pens. Even feeding sows a
high fibre diet results in a significant increase in cleaning time.
The second constraint is the widespread use of slatted flooring and liquid
manure systems. Most of the recommended substrates are not suitable for use
in such systems and there has been a glaring lack of research on the types of
substrate that are compatible with slatted systems. Recent research from
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 103 30/01/2012
Hillsborough and Moorepark suggests that there are ways of overcoming the
latter problem through the use of racks. Spent mushroom compost, straw and
silage have been provided to pigs and sows in racks with varying degrees of
success.
There are other problems such as the limited availability of straw and spent
mushroom compost and the potential environmental and health implications
surrounding the use of peat compost.
27.2. High fibre diets for pregnant sows
Under legislation sows and gilts must be given sufficient quantity of bulky or
high-fibre food in addition to their normal high energy food to prevent them
from suffering from hunger during pregnancy and possibly developing stomach
ulcers. This is a separate and different requirement from the need to provide
manipulable material unless the material is edible as in the case of straw. This
legislation is in force since 2003 but is proving difficult to comply with owing to
the lack of information on ways of delivering high fibre diets, optimum fibre
inclusion levels, best ingredients etc. A combined research initiative between
Hillsborough and Moorepark is addressing some of these issues.
The research showed that provision of straw in racks to group housed sows did
little to improve the welfare sows on a normal concentrate diet. This was
because competition for access to the racks stimulated aggression between the
sows and the quantity of straw was inadequate to improve gut fill. In free
access stall systems, straw racks were more successful in improving welfare
because each sow had access to her own individual rack. Indeed when provided
with a relatively high fibre diet based on soya bean hulls (9% crude fibre) the
effects were as good as feeding a 15% crude fibre diet based on sugar beet pulp
without providing straw.
In conclusion high fibre diets offer improvements to sow health and welfare and
are one of the most promising ways in which the welfare of sows in groups can
be improved.
27.3. Tail docking
Annex of Directive 2001/93/EC prohibits routine tail docking and stipulates
that this procedure may only be carried out once other measures to prevent tail
biting, such as improving the pigs’ conditions, have been taken.
There is evidence to suggest that significant improvements will be made to pigs’
environment by providing appropriate enriching materials and that this would
reduce the need for tail docking. While it is difficult to address the cause of a
sporadic outbreak of tailbiting and the causes in general are multifactorial,
chronic tailbiting problems often reflect deficiencies in the pigs’ environment.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 104 30/01/2012
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety called for a
complete ban on tail docking in a recent report on a Community Action Plan on
the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 (2006/2046(INI)).
27.4. Teeth resection
Clipping of the incisor teeth in the pig soon after birth is practiced to reduce
facial injuries to piglets and also damage to sows teats. Lewis et al. (2003)
concluded that on balance grinding of the teeth is preferable to clipping even
though it is a slower procedure. Leaving teeth intact was associated with an
increased level of injuries to both piglets and sows with some evidence of
increased mortality through overlying in litters with intact teeth. This is also
the experience at farm level with leaving teeth intact. Grinding was the
preferred method of teeth resection advocated in the recent Scientific Opinion
of the AHAW working group.
27.5. Castration
In Ireland male pigs are traditionally not castrated as they are slaughtered at
live weights lower than 100kg minimising the problem of boar taint. However,
slaughter weights are increasing and with it, the risk of taint. The European
Parliament agriculture committee recently called on the Commission to work
towards a pan-European ban on the castration of piglets without anaesthetic.
Few anaesthetics or analgesics are licensed for use in piglets. Furthermore,
both general and epidural anaesthesia necessitate expert knowledge and are
labour intensive. Hence, the use of local anaesthesia offers the best practical
prospects for pain alleviation in piglets although it is not without disadvantages.
In light of this, chemical or immuno castration should be considered as an
alternative.
Immunocastration is used on a high proportion of male pigs in Australia. It
involves two doses of vaccine in the later stages of finishing. The feed
conversion efficiency and growth rate advantages of entire males are retained
and boar taint in carcases is minimised. However the acceptability of the
procedure among European consumers needs to be evaluated.
Rearing entire males to increasingly heavy weights in Ireland could lead to
health and welfare problems because of aggressive and sexual behaviour. This
class of animal was cited for particular concern in the recent Scientific Opinion
of the AHAW working group of the EFSA. Recommendations for research in
this area were provided in that report. Currently a research programme
investigating husbandry effects on the behaviour and meat quality of these pigs
is underway at Moorepark.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 105 30/01/2012
27.6. Farrowing crates
Welfare risks for sows in crates were identified in the Scientific Opinion of the
AHAW working group of EFSA. These included: a) frustration and stress due to
limited space and lack of foraging and nest building material and b) claw damage,
shoulder lesions and teat damage. In piglets, frustration due lack of foraging
material was identified as major risks. It was agreed that piglet mortality is a
multifactorial issue and a major welfare problem. Great variation in piglet
mortality in different systems makes it difficult to draw a general conclusion
about the influence of farrowing systems on piglet mortality. The causes of
piglet mortality and associated welfare problems may differ significantly
between the different farrowing systems. The primary cause of piglet mortality
is often unknown; however mortality due to crushing is known to be higher in
loose housing systems. This was also the case in a recent large-scale study on
indoor loose farrowing and crate systems, although no difference in total piglet
mortality was observed. Breeding goals for large litter size implies increased
piglet mortality.
In the expert opinion of the AHAW working group farrowing systems should
allow for the handling of destructible nest material to enable investigation and
manipulation activities. They conceded that this cannot be considered without
consideration of the welfare of the piglets. Furthermore, they stated that the
use of loose farrowing systems should be implemented only if piglet mortality in
them is no greater that the mean level of mortality where the sows are kept in
confined farrowing systems.
From this it appears that with the current absence of commercially viable
alternatives it is unlikely that farrowing crates will be banned outright in the
short to medium term. However, it does seem likely that it will be required for
sows in crates to be provided with manipulable substrates to satisfy their
motivation to perform nest building behaviour.
27.7. Pregnant sow housing
Probably one of the most dramatic and expensive areas of change in the coming
years will arise from the limit on individual housing systems for dry sows.
Sow tethering became illegal in all Member States from 1st January 2006.
According to the FVO good progress was made with the ban on tethering of
sows being implemented ahead of deadline in most Member States.
The use of sow stalls after the first 4 weeks of pregnancy will become illegal in
all Member States from 1st January 2013. This leaves five years in which to
convert to group housing which is ample time to consider the different options
available. Currently there is funding available from the Dept. of Agriculture to
assist farmers in this conversion.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 106 30/01/2012
Some producers have already converted existing stall or tether accommodation
into group pens to avail of the premium for stall- and tether-free pigmeat.
These simple conversions may not comply with the legislation and in some cases
are associated with sow welfare problems not observed in properly constructed,
well managed group housing systems.
It was strongly argued by McGlone (2004; 2006) and Curtis (2006; 2007) that
the ban on sow stalls and tethers may have disimproved rather than improved
sow welfare.
Other authors have disagreed with McGlone’s 2006 evaluation of gestation
housing (Various authors, 2007). In the US an American Veterinary Medicine
Association Task Force on housing for pregnant sows concluded that “no one
system is clearly better than others under all conditions and according to all
criteria of animal welfare” (AVMA Task Force, 2005). They cautioned that
housing cannot be considered in isolation from other factors that influence
welfare such as management, feeding system, environmental features and type
of sow.
The Scientific Opinion of the AHAW working group of the EFSA is that they
perceive there to still be problems with housing for pregnant sows. They
concluded that housing of sows in individual stalls from weaning until 4 weeks
after mating severely restricts their freedom of movements and causes stress.
Further it does not allow sows to move and socially interact during a period of
the reproductive cycle where they may be highly motivated to do so. In their
recommendations for future research the AHAW suggest that additional work
is required on the welfare and health effects of keeping group-housed sows in
stalls from weaning to 4 weeks after weaning.
While individual stalls may limit movement and therefore contribute to poorer
muscle tone, they do protect the sow from bullying and allow feed allocations to
be matched to the sow’s body condition and desired weight (and backfat) gain
during pregnancy. This is more important in the post weaning period since sows
are in variable body condition at this time.
27.8. Flooring
The behavioural repertoire of a pig includes standing, lying in various positions,
walking to resources even at times when all other pigs are lying, exploration,
thermoregulation, dunging and interacting socially including avoidance if
attacked. These behaviours relate to different biological functions and
motivations and are relevant to pigs in various husbandry conditions. The
underfoot substrate is of fundamental importance to all of these behaviours and
flooring came under increased scrutiny in both of the Scientific Opinions
published this year.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 107 30/01/2012
It is widely accepted that claw injuries in sows are a problem. These are good
indicators of poor welfare due to inadequate flooring. Inadequate flooring
conditions in housing systems for pregnant sows and boars will result in pain due
to claw and leg injuries as well as of overgrown claws. Poor flooring in farrowing
systems can lead to painful limb lesions, shoulder lesions and teat damage in the
sows as well as claw lesions and abrasions to the carpal skin of the piglets.
Lesions also provide an entry for pathogenic organisms resulting in inflammation
and pain. Leg disorders are also a problem in fattening pigs and cause poor
welfare because of pain, reduced mobility and increased risk of victimisation.
The Scientific Opinions recommend that whenever injuries (foot lesions and
lameness) are observed, appropriate flooring conditions in combination with
management procedures should be applied to avoid that situation. To be able to
make more precise recommendations, there is a need for more knowledge on how
pig foot health is affected by different flooring materials.
Council Directive 2001/88/EC foresees that the Commission shall consider
“appropriate legislative proposals on the effects of different space allowances
and floor types applicable to the welfare of weaners and rearing pigs.”
Current legal requirements for floor areas for growing pigs in groups are shown
in Tables 26.1. Current farm practice is to allow more space than this.
Table 27.1. Minimum space allowance for growing pigs in groups (m2 per animal)
Average wt, kg Minimum space, kg
Up to 10kg 0.15
10 to 20 0.20
20 to 30 0.30
30 to 50 0.40
50 to 85 0.55
85 to 110 0.65
More than 110 1.00
Current legal requirements for floor areas for sows in groups are shown in Table
27.2.
Table 27.2. Minimum space allowance for pregnant sows and gilts in groups (m2 per
animal)
Group size Sows Gilts
5 or less 2.5 1.81
6 to 39 2.25 1.64
40 or more 2.025 1.48
Note: the minimum length of any pen side is 2.8m
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 108 30/01/2012
Part of the floor (0.95m2 for each gilt; 1.2m2 for each sow) must be a designated
lying area in the form of continuous sold floor i.e. the drainage openings must be
no more than 15%. The remainder of the floor may be solid or slatted.
Boar pens must provide at least 6.0m2 of unobstructed floor area or 10m2 if the
pen is used for natural service.
The legislation also specifies the permitted dimensions for concrete slats but
not for slats made from other materials (Table 26.3).
Table 26.3. Maximum width of slat opening for concrete slats (mm)
Maximum slot opening Minimum width of solid
Piglets 11 50
Weaners 14 50
Finishers 18 80
Sows and gilts 20 80
27.9. Transport
The Diseases of Animals (Protection of Animals during Transport) Orders, 1995,
1997, 2001 and 2003 prescribe strict standards for animal handling and the
state of vehicle repair and hygiene and, on long journeys, standards for feeding,
watering, resting periods, journey times and stocking densities during
transportation. A register of approved national transporters and hauliers is
maintained by the Department.
Council Regulation 1/2005 apply from 5 January 2007 to persons transporting
their own animals as well as commercial transporters. It sets down training and
authorisation requirements for those involved in transporting and those handling
animals at assembly centres. During 2005 the Department of Agriculture
consulted with interested parties, including farming organisations, transporters
of live animals, operators of Assembly Centres and Livestock Marts and welfare
groups on the implementation of the Regulation.
During transport pigs are required to have at least 0.425m2 /head or a maximum
stocking rate of 235kg/m2.
27.10. Lighting
Irish legislation states that all pig accommodation must be well lit (at least 40
lux) for 8 continuous hours a day. The light source can be either natural or
artificial. Automatic time controlled lighting is the most practical method. The
use of natural light should be encouraged. The lighting in pig houses should not
be flashing and should be of a wavelength and intensity during the light period
that allows pigs to discriminate the behaviour of other pigs and materials such
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 109 30/01/2012
as straw and to show normal diurnal rhythms. The light level and distribution at
times of inspection should be sufficient to allow each pig to be seen.
28. Quality assurance28.1. Bord Bia QA
A Pigmeat Quality Assurance (PQA) programme was introduced by An Bord Bia in
1989 and revised in 1997. Farm auditing was organised by meat plans and
carried out either by trained auditors who were either employees of the plant or
qualified individuals contracted by the plant. Bord Bia have relaunched the PQA
scheme (revised to comply with EN Standard 45011) in 2007 with farm
inspections to be carried out by independent auditors.
Feile Bia is an initiative by Bord Bia to encourage restaurants, hotels and other
foodservice outlets to source their meat and eggs from suppliers approved
under recognised Quality Assurance Schemes, or from small scale suppliers with
appropriate regulatory approval, including butchers. Products in the programme
include beef, lamb, pork, bacon, chicken and eggs. Now in its sixth year, Féile Bia
has almost 1,500 participants across Ireland.
Participating outlets display Féile Bia outdoor plaque and window stickers.
28.2. Retail chain QA
Some retail chains especially UK based have introduced their own QA schemes
which tend to require compliance with UK national legislation plus some
additional requirements introduced by the retailer. Wholesaler supplying
pigmeat to processors who supply these retail groups may carry out similar
audits.
The existence of several QA schemes results in increased compliance and
monitoring costs at both farm and factory level which is difficult to justify.
29. Pig industry representation29.1. Irish Farmers Association
The Pigs and Pigmeat Committee (PPC) of the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) is
the representative body which lobbies politicians and regulatory agencies on
behalf of pig producers. The PPC also acts as a sounding board for regulatory
initiatives and negotiates with pigmeat processing plants and feed companies on
prices for pigmeat and feed.
The IFA divides the country into 10 regional committees each of which sends
representatives to the National Pigs and Pigmeat Committee. The chairman of
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 110 30/01/2012
the PPC represents the interests of the pig sector on the IFA National
Committee. The PPC members elect a smaller management committee to
implement policy.
The large number of regional committees is a relic of when there was a greater
spread of pig units throughout the country. The situation today is different due
to the reduction in the number of pig units in certain areas. The pig population in
Ireland is roughly divided in four regions (1) Cavan, North and North East, (2)
South East, (3) South West and (4) Midlands and West. A new system of c. four
regional committees would lead to a more efficient and streamlined operation
while still allowing sufficient producer representation from each region. The
regional committees could then elect 12-14 members to form the national
committee. This reduced size would eliminate the need for a management
committee thereby simplifying lines of communication from grassroots to
national committee and producing a more efficient and dynamic group overall.
The success or otherwise of a lobby group will be dictated by the support of its
members. Pig producers in Ireland are a numerically small group and therefore
the IFA pigs committee must be able to utilize the support of all producers in
order to be able to have its voice heard at national level. If the producers fail to
provide this financial and physical support then the industry’s voice and concerns
will not be heard over the competing issues and agendas of other parties. Strong
support will lead to a strong voice thereby benefiting all in the industry, weak
support will lead to little or no voice, benefiting nobody and weakening the
industry.
Communication channels need to be improved between the PPC and producers.
Streamlining the committee system would help but there also needs to be
regular updates by way of monthly or quarterly newsletter. This would keep
producers informed of new issues or the progress of current issues and would
also allow more feedback from the producers on current issues and lead to more
informed debate at the regional meetings. Greater use of electronic media
would facilitate contact and greatly reduce cost.
Attendance at local producer meetings is poor and might be improved by
combining technical presentations with the “political” business.
29.2. Funding of producer representation
The PPC of the IFA is at present funded by a voluntary levy on pig sales. It is
understood that the level of collection is well below the theoretical income. If
pig producers wish to have an effective lobby they must be prepared to fund
this either in the form of permanent staff or part time staff or to have a pool
of money to hire outside expertise when required.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 111 30/01/2012
At €100 per pig sale price the theoretical yield of this levy on 2.6 million pigs
slaughtered in the Republic is €390,000. Extension of the levy to live exports
would yield an additional €70,000. A half-hearted funding measure will continue
to leave pig producers feeling underrepresented.
A part-time executive secretary (shared as at present with the poultry sector)
can only be expected to service the PPC and carry out routine administration and
organisation. The provision of technical input needs to be acquired from reliable
external sources. The lessons of the Nitrates Directive must not be forgotten.
29.3. Pigmeat processor representation
The pigmeat processor organisation is the Irish Association of Pigmeat
Processors (IAPP) which is a subsidiary of the Irish Business and Employers
Confederation (IBEC) which claims to represent over 7,000 member
businesses and organisations from all sectors and of all sizes and is the
national voice of Irish business and employers. With the exit of some meat
processors from pig slaughtering, IAPP now represents only three of the larger
slaughter plants and two firms representing under 70% of the weekly kill. This
reduces its effectiveness in influencing policy and in being a united voice for the
pigmeat industry.
The absence of an organisation to represent the other processors is a severe
constraint on the implementation of programmes to improve pigmeat quality and
food safety. There is an urgent need for IAPP to recruit to its membership the
smaller slaughterers and the secondary pigmeat processors.
30. Government agencies impacting on the pig sectorThere is great concern among pig producers and allied sectors that regulations
tend to respond to pressure groups and current “fads” rather than being science
based. Examples include some regulations in animal welfare, feed supply such as
GM ingredients and environment. It is vital if stakeholders are to “buy into”
regulations that the science behind the regulations be robust. The pig
production sector can also play a part in this by being well briefed on emerging
issues and engaging in constructive dialogue with regulators.
30.1. Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFF)
DAFF is responsible for:
overseeing grading of pig carcasses,
disease control,
some aspects of food safety,
animal health,
animal welfare,
feed regulation and
with DOEHLG in environmental policy.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 112 30/01/2012
It also influences policy in relation to pigmeat by grant aid to the processing
sector and recently to manure management and sow housing.
30.2. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government
(DOEHLG) / Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / Local
Authorities
About 65% of the national sow herd is in units of size above the threshold for
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) licensing. This is high by EU
standards. Relations between pig producers and the EPA have been difficult
with disputes over the amount of information on farms of customers for manure
which should be on files accessible to the public.
DOEHLG has as its main function (as it impacts on pig production) – the
protection of water quality and this function is administered locally by County
Councils. DOEHLG had a prominent role in the formulation of the Nitrates
Action Plan (NAP).
The implementation of the Nitrates Action Plan (SI 378) and its application to
all farms means that some of the concerns of the EPA in relation to manure
application to land could be regulated under the NAP. This could serve as the
basis for the resolutions of issues in dispute between EPA and IFA.
30.3. Bord Bia
Bord Bia has an active role in promotion of pigmeat on the home an export
market and assistance to firms wishing to export pigmeat.
30.4. Enterprise Ireland
Enterprise Ireland has an active programme aimed at improving technical and
financial management of pigmeat processing plants.
30.5. Teagasc
Teagasc is the body charged by the government with responsibility for research
and development in pig production. The Teagasc pig service offers research,
advice and training within a unified management unit. See sections 21.
30.6. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)
The mission statement of the FSAI is as follows:
“Our mission is to protect consumers' health and consumers' interests by
ensuring that food consumed, distributed, marketed or produced in the
state meets the highest standards of food safety and hygiene”
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 113 30/01/2012
30.7. Health and Safety Authority
The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is the body with responsibility for
regulation of health and safety in the workplace. HAS carries out
inspections/audits of workplaces.
Pig producers are required by law to have a Safety Statement which details the
risks to health and safety in the workplace and the steps taken to mitigate such
risks.
31. SWOT analysis of Irish Pig Industry31.1. Strengths
The production sector consists of a committed group of existing pig
producers
The vast majority are professional, full time, specialist producers
Unit managers are well educated and have - management training
Units are labour efficient with a high level of mechanisation and
automation
Units produce to the Bord Bia quality assured standard
Producers have access to good technical backup (advisers, vets)
large units provide significant economies of scale
Because of its island status Ireland has the potential to remain free of
serious pig disease
The density of pig production is very low
Ireland is close to the substantial and increasing large UK market
The health status of national herd is good
Internationally Irish producers are competitive on production costs
31.2. Weaknesses
There is increased dependence on inexperienced labour .
There is no formal training available for staff
Technical efficiency is declining vis-a-vis other EU producers
Feed costs are higher compared to other European countries
There is a lack of political clout (within farm organisations and nationally)
The health status of the national herd is declining as new health problems
arise
There is considerable uncertainty regarding slaughtering plants and
capacity
Lack of transparency in pricing of pigmeat and feed are ongoing issues
The size of the national herd as percentage of EU 25 is small
Lack of investment in upgrading of housing and facilities means efficiency
levels are being reduced
The return on investment has been low
There is a gradual decline in numbers in national herd
There is also a decline in number of units
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 114 30/01/2012
The limited pool of genetics is related to the small national herd
The industry has a PR deficit – a poor image
The carcass grading system lacks credibility
31.3. Opportunities
The high per capita consumption in the home market provides a good base
There is some scope to produce heavier carcasses
Proximity to the UK market where home supplies have fallen dramatically
There are employment opportunities for part time farmers on pig units
Contract finishing of pigs may be a viable option for farmers
Grants for Farm Waste Management and loose housing of sows are
currently available
The traceability of pigmeat is excellent and production is to known
production standards
The image of the industry can be improved
The good image of “green Ireland”, “food island is an asset
31.4. Threats
Herd health problems such as PMWS, PRRS, etc are serious issues
Environmental legislation (planning, Water Framework, IPPC, Kyoto,
Gothenburg Protocol, Nitrates) are significant constraints
Welfare legislation poses challenges before 2013
Energy costs are increasing
There is a considerable risk of boar taint in heavy carcasses
Imports of pigmeat are no longer insignificant
The cost of labour is increasing
The increased urbanisation of rural Ireland
REPS scheme often operates as a disincentive to use of pig manure as a
fertiliser
The lack of formal training opportunities for staff is likely to lead to
reduced efficiencies on units
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 115 30/01/2012
32. Implementation programme for development planR
ecc.N
o.
Pro
ducers
Sla
ughte
r
pla
nts
Bord
Bia
Teagasc
EPA
DA
FF
DO
EH
LG
Feed
indust
ry
A.1 * * *
A.2 * * * *
B.1 * * * *
B.2 * * * *
B.3 * * *
B.4 * *
B.5 * *
B.6 * * * * *
C.1 * *
C.2 * *
C.3 * *
C.4 * *
C.5 *
C.6 *
C.7 *
C.8 *
C.9 *
C.10 *
C. 11 *
C. 12 * *
D1 * *
D2 * *
D3 * *
D4 * * *
D5 * *
D6 * *
E1 *
E2 *
E3 *
E4 * *
E5 * *
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 116 30/01/2012
Implementation Programme (continued)
Recc.N
o.
Pro
ducers
Sla
ughte
r
pla
nts
Bord
Bia
Teagasc
EPA
DA
FF
DO
EH
LG
Feed
indust
ry
F1 * *
F2 *
F3 * *
F4 * *
F5 *
F6 * *
F7 * *
F8 * * *
F9 *
F10 *
G1 * * *
G2 * * *
G3 * *
G4 *
G5 *
G6 *
H1 * * * *
H2 * *
H3 * *
H4 *
H5 * *
H6 * * * * *
I1 * *
I2 *
I3 *
I4 *
J1 *
J2 *
K1 * *
K2 * * *
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 117 30/01/2012
33. References
Agri Vision 2010 (2000). Agri Vision 2010 Action Plan. Stationery Office, Dublin. 42pp.
Agri Vision 2015 (2004). Agri Vision 2015 Report of the Agri Vision 2015 Committee.
http://www.agri-vision2015.ie/AgriVision2015_PublishedReport.pdf. 109pp.
Allen, P., Joseph, R. and Lynch, B. 2001. Reducing the incidence of boar taint in Irish
pigs. Final Report, Project Armis No. 4404, Teagasc. 14pp.
APL (2005). Strategic Plan 2005-2010. Australian Pork Limited, Deakin West, ACT,
Australia. http://www.apl.au.com/
AVMA Task Force (2005). Task Force Report. A comprehensive review of housing for
pregnant sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 227:1580-
1590.
Best, P. (2006). Which way Brittany ?. Feed International, December
BPEX (2006a). Pig Yearbook 2006. British Pig Executive, Milton Keynes, 74pp.
Bord Bia (2002). Meat Import Trends on the Irish Market. Unpublished Report
BPEX (2006b). BPEX Analysis of Pork and Pork Imports into the UK in 2005. British Pig
Executive, Milton Keynes.
BPEX (2006c). The road to recovery 2006 -2009: A strategy for prosperity in the pig
production and processing industry in England and Wales. British Pig Executive, Milton
Keynes. http://www.bpex.org/about/pdfs/RoadtoRecovery2006-09.pdf
Bracke, (2006) Animal Welfare 15: 67-70.
Buoma, J. (2006). Strategies for pork growth. Alberta Pork Industry Report 3(4):1.
http://www.albertapork.com/Uploads/News%20&%20Reports/IndRpt/Aug2006.pdf
Canadian Meat Council, Canadian Pork Council and Canada Pork International (2007).
Canadian Pork Value chain – Strengthening our competitiveness. Canadian Meat Council,
Ottawa, Ontario. 21pp.
Carpentier, C.L., Herath, D. and Weersink, A. (2004). Environmental and other factors
influencing location decisions of livestock operations. Winrock International.
http://www.winrock.org/agriculture/files/2005,08-WinrockMontage.pdf
Curtis, S.E. (2006). Rush to group sow housing makes no sense. Feedstuffs 78(51):
December 11.
Curtis, S.E. (2007). Commentary. Performance indicates animal state of being: A
Cinderella Axiom? The Professional Animal Scientist 23:573-583.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 118 30/01/2012
DAFF (2006). Minister Coughlan launches sheep strategy implementation group. Press
release, July 26, 2006. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=pressrel/2006/137-
2006.xml
DAFF (2007). Coughlan announces establishment of beef forum. Press release December
13, 2007. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=pressrel/2007/262-2007.xml
Davis, C. and Lin, B-H. (2005). Factors affecting US pork consumption. Economic
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture LDP-M-130-01.
DEFRA (2006a). National Statistics - Pig Statistics. Department of Environment, Food
and Rural affairs, London. Http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/pignote.pdf.
Accessed 26/1/2007.
DEFRA (2006b). National Statistics – GB Feed Statistical notice September 2006.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural affairs, London.
DG AGRI (2007). Economic Impact of Unapproved GMOs on EU Feed Imports and
Livestock Production. European Commission Diectorate General for Agriculture and Rural
Development, Brussels. 11pp.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impactGMOs_en.pdf
DMA (2006). Swine Statistics 2005. Danish Meat Association.
Donoghue, P. (2007). Consumer perceptions and retail trends of pigmeat. Presentation
to Relay Research Workshop on Pork Quality. Teagasc, Ashtown Food Research Centre,
Dublin, November 14, 2007.
Elam, T.E. (2004). Meeting growing meat demand for a future while protecting
environment will be a challenge. Feedstuffs January 26, pp. 23-28.
ECJ (2005). Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. Failure of a Member
State to fulfil obligations – Directive 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Meaning of “waste”
Case C-416/02.
EESC (2007). Actions taken on opinions adopted by the European Economic and Social
Committee at its plenary sessions in the third quarter of 2006. DI CESE 20/2007.
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/documents/follow-up/2006/suivi_avis_3t_06_en.pdf
EFSA (2007). EFSA Scientific Opinion: Certain Aspects related to the Feeding of
Animal Proteins to Farm Animals[1] - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Biological
Hazards. Question number: EFSA-Q-2007-084. Adopted date: 17/10/2007.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178659674335.htm
Ellis, M. (2006). Global pigmeat production: How good are our competitors ?.
Proceedings Teagasc Pig Farmers Conference, pp. 81-87.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 119 30/01/2012
Elobeid, A., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D.J., Babcock, B.a. and Hart, C.E. (2006). The long-run
impact of corn-based ethanol on the grain, oilseed and livestock sectors: A preliminary
assessment. CARD Briefing Paper 06-BP-49. Center for Agricultural and Rural
Development, Iowa State University.
European Commission (2007). Agricultural Commodity Markets 2007 – 2016.
Directorate General for Agricultural and Rural Development. 42pp.
FAO (2006a). World Agriculture towards 2030/2050. Interim Report, Global
Perspectives Studies Unit, FAO, Rome. 71pp.
FAO (2006b). Food Outlook. Global Market Analysis. No. 2, December
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA (2006). Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and
Trade. FAS USDA Circular Series DL& P 2-06’
_
Fowler, T. (2006a). Pig cost of production in Selected Countries 2005. BPEX/MLC,
Milton Keynes, UK
Fowler, T. (2006b). Feed Prices and the UK Pig Industry. BPEX/MLC, Milton Keynes, UK
GAIN Report AS6057 (2006). Australia Livestock and Products Annual. Global
Agriculture Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
GAIN Report BR6622 (2006). Brazil Livestock and Products Annual. Global Agriculture
Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
GAIN Report BU6007 (2006). Bulgaria Livestock and Products Annual. Global
Agriculture Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
GAIN Report E36107 (2006). EU-25 Livestock and Products Annual. Global Agriculture
Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
Garnier, J. P. (2006). The Romanian Pork Market. Briefing paper BPEX/MLC. Milton
Keynes, UK.
Grier, K. and Mussells, A. (2007). Canadian Pork Industry issues and challenges. George
Morris Centre, Guelph, Ontario. 48pp.
Haley, M.A. (2004). Market Integration in the North American Hog Industry. Economic
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture LDP-M-125-01.
Hawe, M. and Donnelly, L. (2007). Marketing pigs to maximise profit. Proceedings
Teagasc Pig Farmers Conference, pp. 14-18.
Honeyman, M.S., Pirog, R.S., Huber, G.H. Lammers , P.J. and Hermann, J.R. (2006). The
United States pork niche market phenomenon. Journal of Animal Science 84:2269-2275.
Hughes, J. (2004). Bord Bia – Pigmeat market update. Proceedings Teagasc Pig Farmers
Conference, pp. 27-42.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 120 30/01/2012
IFA (1999) Survival of Irish Pig Meat Industry: Matrix Business Services
IFIP (2006). Le Porc par les Chiffres 2006. IFIP Institut du Porc, Paris, France. 52pp.
IFIP (2007). Le Porc par les Chiffres 2007. IFIP Institut du Porc, Paris, France. 52pp.
Marche du Porc Breton (2007). Note de conjuncture November 2007. Marche du Porc
Breton, Plerin, France. 12pp.
Informa Rconomics Inc (2005). The Changing US Pork Industry and Implications for
Future Growth. Report for Indiana State Department of Agriculture. 23pp.
http://www.state.in.us/isda/files/Porkstudy.pdf
IOFGA (2006). The IOFGA Standards for Organic Food and Farming in Ireland.
http://www.iofga.org/IOFGA%20Standards%20Edition%201%20January%202006.pdf.
Accessed February 12, 2007.
Kelliher, D. (2002). Responding to the Salmonella Control Programme. Proceedings of
the Teagasc Pig Farmers Conference 2002, p. 69-81
Kliebenstein, J.B., Hurley, T. Orazem, P., Miller, D. and May S. (2006). A look at the
employment in the United States Swine Production industry. Iowa State University
Animal Industry Report 2006.
Lawlor, P. (2003). Issues with heavier pigs. Proceedings Teagasc Pig Farmers Conference,
pp. 83-92.
Lewis, E., Boyle, L.A., Brophy, P., O’Doherty, J.V. and Lynch, P.B. (2005). The effect of
two teeth resection procedures on the welfare of piglets in farrowing crates. Part 1.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90:233-249.
Lewis, E., Boyle, L.A., Brophy, P., O’Doherty, J.V. and Lynch, P.B. (2005). The effect of
two teeth resection procedures on the welfare of sows in farrowing crates. Part 2.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90:251-264.
Lynch, P.B., Allen, P. and Lawlor, P. (1998). Comparison of sirelines for production of
slaughter pigs. End of Project Report 4129/4130, Teagasc, Dublin. 24pp.
Lynch, P.B. and Kerry, J. (2000). Utilising diet to incorporate bioactive compounds and
improve the nutritional quality of muscle foods. In: Antioxidants in Muscle Foods (Eds.
E.A. Decker, C.A. Faustman and C.J. Lopez-Bote), Wiley Interscience, New York. Pp.
455-480.
Lynch, P.B., Martin, M., Tuite, P., Carroll, C., Finn, J, Lawlor, P. and McCutcheon, G.
(2003). Biosecurity procedures for pig units in Ireland , Teagasc, Dublin. 20pp.
MAFRI (2002). Manitoba Swine Industry facts. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural
Initiative. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/statistics/aac13s01.html
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 121 30/01/2012
Marquardt, R.R., Frohlich, A.A., Sreemannarayans, O., Abramson, D. and Bernatsky, A.
(1988). Ochratoxin A in blood from slaughter pigs in western Canada. Canadian Journal
of Veterinary Research 52: 186-190
Martin, M. (2006). Manure Treatment – Has it a role. Proceedings Teagasc Pig Farmers
Conference pp. 42-51.
McCarthy M., O'Reilly S., Cotter L. and De Boer M. (2004). Factors influencing
consumption of pork and poultry in the Irish market. Appetite 43:19-28.
McGlone, J. (2006). Comparison of sow welfare in the Swedish deep-bedded system and
the US crated-sow-system. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association
229:1327-1330.
McGlone, J J, Borell, E H von, Deen, J, Johnson, A K, Levis, D.G., Meunier-Salon, M.,
Morrow, J., Reeves, D., Salak-Johnson, J.L. and Sundberg,P.L. (2004). REVIEW:
Compilation of the Scientific Literature Comparing Housing Systems for Gestating Sows
and Gilts Using Measures of Physiology, Behavior, Performance, and Health. Professional
Animal Scientist 20:105-117.
McKeon, M. (2006). Depop-Repop – Is it for you ? Proceedings Teagasc Pig Farmers
Conference pp. 27-34.
Mullan, B. (2004). Presentaion to Teagasc Pig Development Unit In-service meeting.
Mullane, J. (2004). Effect of Carcass weight and sex on production efficiency and eating
quality of pigmeat. MSc Thesis, University College, Cork.
NASS (2006). US Hog Breeding Herd Structure. National Agricultural Statistics
Service, USDA. 7pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/hog-herd//2000s/2006/hog-herd-09-22-
2006.pdf
NFRD (2006). National Food Residue Database Report 2006. Teagasc, Ashtown, Dublin.
Nijland, R. (2006). Danish pig industry faces turbulent times. Pig Progress 22 (2):13-16.
O’Connell, K. and Lynch, P.B. (2004). Organic poultry production in Ireland. Problems and
possible solutions. Unpublished report to Department of Agriculture and Food.
O’Neill, D.J., Lynch, P.B., Troy, D.J., Buckley, D.J. and Kerry, J.P. (2003). Influence of
the time of year on the incidence of PSE and DFD in Irish pigmeat. Meat Science
64:105-111.
Patience, J.F. (1993). The Swine Industry. In “Animal Production in Canada” Eds. J.
Martin, R.J. Hudson and B.A. Young. University of Alberta, pp. 93-116.
Pond, W.G. (1991). Of pigs and people. In “Swine Nutrition” Eds. E.R. Miller, D.E. Ullrey
and A.J. Lewis. Butterworth-Henemann, Boston. Pp. 3-23.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 122 30/01/2012
Prospectus Report (2000).
Roppa, L. (2005). Competition from South American Pork Production. In: Advances in
Pork Production – Banff Pork Seminar 16:29-42.
Roguet, C. (2007). Danemark: Les elevages de porcs en mutation. Barometre Porc No.
371 (Dec. 2007) p. 8.
Salazar, M. and McNamara, K.T. (2005). The Indiana Pork Industry: Trends and
Economic importance. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
SI 200 of 1984. European Communities (Marketing Of Feedingstuffs) (Amendment)
Regulations 1984. Stationary Office, Dublin. www.Irishstatutebook.ie.
SI 143 of 1994. European Communities (Marketing Of Feedingstuffs) (Amendment)
Regulations 1994. Stationary Office, Dublin. www.Irishstatutebook.ie.
SI 600 of 2001. Planning and Development Regulations 2001, Stationary Office, Dublin.
www.Irishstatutebook.ie.
SI 237 of 2003. European Communities (Marketing of Compound Feedingstuffs)
(Amendment) Regulations 2003. Stationary Office, Dublin. www.Irishstatutebook.ie.
SI 279 of 2006. Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. (Established Activities)
Order 2006. Stationary Office, Dublin. www.Irishstatutebook.ie
SI – 378 of 2006. EC Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Water Regulations
2006. Stationary Office, Dublin. www.Irishstatutebook.ie
Slevin, O. (2002). Bord Bia – Pigmeat market update. Proceedings Teagasc Pig Farmers
Conference, pp. 29-39.
Smith, B. (2005). Closing address by Mr. Brendan Smith TD, Minister of State at the
Department of Agriculture and Food at the Teagasc Annual Pig Conference, Longford.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan, C. (2006).
Livestock’s long shadow; Environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome. 390pp.
Teagasc (1997). Development of the National Pig Industry 1997-2000. Teagasc, Dublin.
22pp
Various authors (2007). Letters to the Editor. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association. 230:185-188
Wuskowitz, D. (2007). Fatter heritage breeds find favour with chefs. USA To-Day,
January 26.
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 123 30/01/2012
34. Appendices
34.1. Appendix 1. Membership of project team
The project was carried out by the advisory and research staff of the
Teagasc Pig Production Development Unit, namely:
Brendan Lynch
Michael Martin
Laura Boyle
Ciaran Carroll
Seamas Clarke
Ger McCutcheon
Peadar Lawlor
Michael McKeon
Karen O’Connell
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 124 30/01/2012
Appendix 2. Pig population (December census) and pig output in Ireland 1980 to
2005
No sows(December)
Total nopigs
(December)
Output(millionhead)
Output value(millionEuro)
Output as %GAO
1980 103 1031 2.4 165 7.61981 107 1027 2.2 190 7.51982 110 1081 2.2 213 7.31983 108 1053 2.3 220 6.81984 105 1020 2.2 207 5.71985 103 994 2.0 192 5.51986 100 980 2.1 185 5.41987 99 960 2.2 184 5.01988 106 1015 2.2 176 4.41989 121 1110 2.3 225 5.21990 136 1249 2.5 237 5.11991 146 1346 2.6 242 5.31992 158 1423 2.8 280 5.81993 154 1487 3.0 258 5.11994 148 1498 3.0 265 5.41995 158 1542 3.1 295 5.71996 165 1665 357 6.91997 175 1717 337 7.11998 170 1801 283 6.01999 171 1763 251 5.42000 167 1732 297 6.12001 169 1763 345 6.82002 165 1781 301 6.42003 158 1732 283 5.82004 158 17582005 156 1678
Source: CSO. Note the methodology for calculating the value of output was changed in 990
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 125 30/01/2012
Appendix 3. Pig and Feed Prices and Margin over Feed Cost per kg Dead Weight.
1991-2006
Year Average
Finisher Price
c/kg dead
Composite
Feed Price
€/tonne
Feed Cost
c/kg dead
weight
Margin Over
Feed c/kg
dead Weight
1991 138 239 97 42
1992 148 242 97 51
1993 128 237 93 35
1994 128 233 90 37
1995 143 226 86 57
1996 164 238 92 72
1997 143 231 88 55
1998 114 216 81 33
1999 102 202 76 26
2000 130 207 80 50
2001 148 220 84 65
2002 130 220 83 49
2003 126 217 82 43
2004 137 226 86 42
2005 135 208 80 54
2006 140 212 83 57
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 126 30/01/2012
Appendix 4. Density of pigs in Ireland by county and contribution of pigs and poultry to Organic Nitrogen loading
Area Farmed All Pigs Breeding Pigs Pig/100 ha Sows / 100haSows / 100hatillage
ON load,kg/ha Pigs as % ON
Pigs +Poultry as %ON
000 haIreland 4443 1722 176.85 38.8 4.0 44.1 106 3.1 4.1
Leinster 1346 484 48.23 36.0 3.6 19.0 108 2.7 3.0
Carlow 71.9 20.8 2.3 28.9 3.2 11.7 105 2.5 2.6Dublin 37.7 0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 58 0.0 0.3Kildare 112.5 27.8 3.81 24.7 3.4 12.9 85 3.3 3.6Kilkenny 160.5 60.3 5.91 37.6 3.7 26.3 130 2.3 2.3Laois 119.9 42.7 4.08 35.6 3.4 21.8 116 2.4 2.4Longford 73.8 72.0 7.69 98.0 10.4 854.4 107 7.9 8.0Louth 62 17.4 1.03 28.1 1.7 4.7 94 1.5 2.9Meath 179.5 37.8 3.80 21.1 2.1 11.8 113 1.5 2.2Offaly 121.4 54.0 5.55 44.5 4.6 47.9 118 3.3 3.3Westmeath 120 42.0 3.71 35.0 3.1 64.0 105 2.4 2.5Wexford 185 66.7 6.50 36.1 3.5 10.9 105 2.8 3.0Wicklow 101.7 26.3 2.00 25.9 2.0 14.3 111 1.5 1.6
Munster 1657 715.8 73.88 43.2 4.5 63.1 117 3.1 4.0
Clare 210.5 15.1 1.55 7.2 0.7 73.8 85 0.7 0.7Cork 533.8 364.1 38.49 68.2 7.2 57.6 128 4.7 5.2Kerry 278.2 50.2 4.97 18.0 1.8 99.4 95 1.6 1.9Limerick 202 55.5 5.95 27.5 2.9 212.5 128 1.9 4.9Tipp N 149.4 45.4 4.53 30.4 3.0 36.8 122 2.0 2.1Tipp S 159.1 97 9.83 61.0 6.2 63.0 132 3.9 3.9Tipperary 308.5Waterford 124.4 88.5 8.56 71.1 6.9 56.3 135 4.2 6.5
Appendix 4. (continued). Density of pigs in Ireland by county and contribution of pigs and poultry to Organic Nitrogen loading
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 127 30/01/2012
Area Farmed All Pigs Breding Pigs Pig/100 ha Sows / 100haSows / 100hatillage
ON load,kg/ha Pigs as % ON
Pigs +Poultry as %ON
Connaught 971 68.2 7.31 7.0 0.8 48.1 85 0.7 1.0
Galway 335.8 7.8 0.87 2.3 0.3 11.4 94 0.2 0.4Leitrim 91.5 7.4 1.18 8.1 1.3 236.0 64 1.6 1.9Mayo 274.2 25.2 2.52 9.2 0.9 64.6 80 0.9 1.6Roscommon 159.5 24.4 2.4 15.3 1.5 126.3 91 1.3 1.4Sligo 110.3 3.4 0.33 3.1 0.3 25.4 79 0.3 0.3
Ulster 469 454 47.44 96.8 10.1 334.1 106 7.9 12.9
Cavan 138.3 374.6 39.52 270.9 28.6 1881.9 133 17.8 19.3Donegal 230.6 39.4 3.91 17.1 1.7 38.0 69 2.0 2.1Monaghan 99.6 40.1 4.01 40.3 4.0 222.8 153 2.2 16.4
Max 533.8 374.6 39.52 270.9 28.6 1881.9 153 17.8 19.3Min 37.7 0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 58 0.0 0.3
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 128 30/01/2012
Appendix 5. Written submissions and meetings
The following individuals and organisation made oral or written
submissions. Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged:
1. An Bord Bia
2. Ballyburden Meats - Brian Walsh
3. Bartlett, Mary-Anne, CIWF
4. Beattie, Violet, Pig Production Development Committee, N.
Ireland
5. Ted Carty, Carty Meats, Athlone
6. Cavan Co. Council
7. Crowley, John, Agricultural consultant, Bandon
8. Dawn Meats
9. Douglas, G. (PIC Ireland)
10. Dunne, John, DSM
11. Ennis, Michael, feed industry consultant
12. Enterprise Ireland
13. Environmental Protection Agency
14. Glanbia
15. Glenaine Foods, David Mc Grath
16. Hanrahan, Tom, Kilworth
17. Irish Farmers Association
18. Irish Grain and Feed Association
19. Kavanagh, Noel, MRCVS
20. Kelliher, Denis, MRCVS
21. Kerry, Joe, Meat Technology, UCC
22. Laois Co. Council
23. McCarren, Andrew, Cavan
24. National Co-op Pig Producers (NCPP)
25. Nolan, Ned, Hermitage AI
26. Nutec – SCA
27. O’Sullivan, John, Meat Industry Consultant
28. RLS Pig Group, Roscommon
29. Slevin, Olivia, Olhausens
30. Spillane, Paul, MRCVS
31. Teagasc, Ashtown Food Research Centre
32. Tipperary South Co. Council
33. Tipperary North Co. Council
34. Focus group, Moorepark 5/12/2006 (Rory O’Brien, Conor
O’Brien, Phillip O’Brien, Jimmy O’Brien, Owen O’Brien, Jimmy
Pig Industry Development strategy for the Irish Pig Industry 2008 to 2015 - Final 129 30/01/2012
Foran, James Foran, Tom Hanrahan, Mike Sweeney, Mike McEniry,
Jim McGrath, Pat O’Keeffe, Gerry Douglas)
35. Focus group, Cavan January 22, 2007 (Daniel Fay, Tony Fay,
John Kiernan, Edward Moore, Luke Bogue, Damien Grimes, Michael
Caffrey, John Higgins, Eamon Briody, Killian Tully, Richard Allison,
Ronnie Kells, Con McEnroe, Seamus Smith, Matt Cusack)
36. Focus group, Tullamore January 23, 2007 (John Hynes,
Richard and Rose Fryday, Matty Moore, Brian Alwell, Roy Gallie,
Ber Gilsenan, John Murphy, Cormac Minnock, Nicholas Molloy, Sean
Brady
37. Focus group, Kilkenny January 24, 2007 (Michael O Shea,
Patrick Moore, Billy Moore, Michael O Neill, James Power, Tommy
Norton, Richie Norton, Dickie Norton, Tim Cullinan, Seamus
Kirwan, Robert Dowley, Michael O Shea and Paul Tully)
38. Focus group, Bandon January 30, 2007 (Raymond Moloney,
Sean Hales, Jerry Murphy, Margaret Murphy, Jerry O’Brien,
Oliver O’Sullivan, Jim McCarthy, Tom Moyles, Henry Sweetnam,
Leo Meade, Jerome O’Leary, Eugene Riordan, Padraig McCarthy,
James Nyhan, James Ronan, Sean O’Mahony, John Ryan, Tim Ryan,
Don French, Dick Kingston, Padraig O’Donoghue, Paul Murphy)